2 inquisitive I can only repeat my request :
The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I am not denying that energy exists
I am not denying that it can be transmitted.
and I think it is facile for you to suggest that I am.
I am I repeat , denying that we know how this energy is transmitted and the use of a free running photon theory other than being convenient has not been proven.
now do I have to repeat myself again? Or am I clear enough?
It has been proven as requested, many times by many people in your threads. You throw around words like quantum tunneling with no indication that you understand what they mean. I cooked my hambuger by quantum tunneling. Hmmm... deep!
QQW,
Stop saying 'we'. Replace it with 'I' when you state your own ignorance of the mechanism. Repeating yourself does not make you correct. Did I make myself clear?
maybe if you provided the unambigious proof needed you wouldn't be getting so upset.
Spend more time trying to understand the question and less time trying to avoid the issue.
It really doesn't matter to me regardless of the outcome of this thread but it does matter to you guys.
You want to chase a multi time dimensional universe then go for it......
And the only reason that time is deemed as relative is simply because we as a community in general hold the unproven notion that a photon travels as a free running entity.
So if you can prove a free running photon, is free running, you can also prove relative time. so go for it.. and I bet you you can't
So if you can prove a free running photon, is free running, you can also prove relative time. so go for it.. and I bet you you can't
QQ,
You made the assertion that 'we' don't have 'proof'. Science has very extensive that light travels, evidence that cannot be explained any other way. Your requirement for a proof that sastifies you is noones obligation. But you keep stating 'we' as if it applied to science. Has this got something to do with your belief in God?
What makes you think I am upset?
You made the assertion that 'we' don't have 'proof'. Science has very extensive that light travels, evidence that cannot be explained any other way. Your requirement for a proof that sastifies you is noones obligation. But you keep stating 'we' as if it applied to science. Has this got something to do with your belief in God?
well you know of course 2inq, the ancient Greeks used to reconcile their lack of understanding of natural events by believing in the notion of many Gods, not to mention many other cases where a scientist will claim something only because it "must be so".QQ,
What makes you think I am upset?
maybe the photon is just another one of those "Gods"
Not having the ability to offer an alternative explanation doesn't justify a theory ......afterall we know the ancient Greeks got it wrong...
nearly 7 pages and 12 days running and yet to see anything that can prove UNAMBIGUOUSLY that a photon is free running.....
off to bed but before I go a parting shot....
The only reason that the theory is in question is because there is a lack of unambiguous proof of a free running photon's existance. It is that ambiguousness that opens the door to other possible explanations, so I offer any one the opportunity to remove the ambiguousness by providing proper evidence to support the free running nature of a photon particle, energy packet or wave or both or all or what ever......
The only reason that the theory is in question is because there is a lack of unambiguous proof of a free running photon's existance. It is that ambiguousness that opens the door to other possible explanations, so I offer any one the opportunity to remove the ambiguousness by providing proper evidence to support the free running nature of a photon particle, energy packet or wave or both or all or what ever......
QQ,
Of course it does. If a theory explains something and no other theory can, then that theory is very justified.
This is where you make your mistake. The Greeks did not offer a theory, they offered idle speculation with no evidence to back it up. Do you understand the difference between speculation, hypothesis, and theory? Your speculation does not offer any mechanism better than 'God did it'.
all that I think is in question can be summed up with at least 2 possible scenarios.
1] that Em events occur due to the traveling of a photon [ or what ever ] to the object of mass [ reflector] and impacting on that object of mass.
or
2] That what we observe is in fact an event that occurs only at the object of mass and is a reflector event caused by unknown reasons and not due to the travelling of a photon.
So is light a photon event or an object of mass event?
Because we cannot differentiate between the light and the object of mass [ reflector] these two possibilities continue to exist. Thus the solution to the question is currently ambiguous as both are equally possible given the lack of evidence to support the popular notion that a photon travels as a free running entity.
So I am asking that this question be resolved by getting appropriate evidence to support the currently held belief and remove the ambiguous nature of what we [oops! you ] think we [oops! you] are observing.
Traditionally the burden of proof is borne by the one proposing a solution and not the one seeking a solution. Thus for me to believe as you do you or the science community need to convince me with appropriate evidence to support your contention. As far as I can tell I see what I see and certainly I see no free running photons. I wonder why I should take the counter intuitive position and agree to something that has no evidence to support it.
I would rather say that I do not know than to delude myself in saying that I do know when I don't
Last edited:
Of course they had evidence...ie...a storm is coming to flood the land and due to lack of any other possible explanation it must be a Gods handy work. The evidence of Gods work is the storm. In fact the Act of God is still legally recognised. [ sheesh! you would think we [oops! they] would have learned by now ha]
On (1) I am confused on what "we just established" refers to. I have not agreed that photon attract each other in anyway. I falsely postulate that they do, derive the observable consequences and then note that these things are not observed, Hence confirm that they do not mutually attract. (Re-enforce my POV)
On(2) Actually, under the false mutual attraction assumption, I think the clumping is more complex than simple constantly narrowing "spikes of light." Consider four initially slightly divergent rays (many photon in each) A,B,C,& D, with identical "micro angles" between and ordered as in the alphabet. They will have slight statistical differences in number of photons per unit length of ray. Thus, for example if A is near average, B & C are slightly above average, D is slightly below average all in the same centimeter of distance from the center of the star, I expect (still under the false speculation of mutual attraction) that ray C will bend a little towards ray B in this centimeter of length of the ray. Once this "instability" is established from the statically noise, it will self amplify. However, the photons in B & C will not "merge" into one more intense photon beam /spike, BC. Instead (I think, not sure.) the B & C photons will "oscillate" thru each other. Possibly, (I do not know of any) there is a very slight non- linearity in space (perhaps due to "vacuum polarizations?) which "damps" this oscillation so that ray BC does form. Even if there is and BC ray forms, I do not think the "damping" is dissipative of the energy that was originally in the photons (Not even part of the reason "red shift" is observed, but the "tired-light" people may have discussed how disipation might occur.) Instead, the "damping" dissipates the energy they gain by falling towards each other.
Thus if space's permeability or dielectric "constant" is not constant, but has some term which changes with the photon's E or H fields so that this damping can occur, perhaps my earlier expectation (sharp spikes of light not entering more than one eye) is correct conclusion from a false premise. If there is no damping collision between rays B & C, and they "oscillate" thru each other forever. Thus, part of "Twinkle- Twinkle, little Star” has new explanation (only under the false premise).
Now Quantum Quack could counter my initial argument (he sees same sky stars as I do so no spikes of light.) by noting that "light spikes, infinitely narrow do not form but B & C just "oscillate" thru each other. However, then he must explain why telescopes with high-speed temporal resolution photo multiplier detectors do not record any harmonic modulation of the starlight associated with these "oscillations" of B & C photons thru each other.
(3) Really good question! No problem long term for photo that returns to the black hole. Consider lesser case: Earth based laser sent vertical away from sun at Midnight. Those photons are losing momentum as they red shift climbing out of the solar gravity well into deep space. Where did it go? How can the force need to conserve total be transferred to the mass of solar system and give it compensating momentum without photon having some way to apply the force? Really good question you asked. Off hand, I do not know what to say. I will ponder it soon, if no one jumps in to tell answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think my "time of flight" is linear with distance between Kerr cell and corner cube does firmly establish that some thing has this velocity, but agree it need not prove this “something" is a photon as we understand the photon today.
I also think you are wrong with: "{my Kerr cell/corner cube experiments} yield the same inconclusive results in that the fact that photon and reflector can not be differentiated means that the proposed photons free running nature can not be proven conclusively" EXCEPT if you are only observing that nothing can be "proven conclusively." For example, Bishop Berkley argues with flawless logic that nothing material exists. Those of us who believe otherwise are on weaker logical grounds as we must postulate the existence of a physical world when the only thing we can be certain of is Descartes’ “thinking being/spirit” derived from "Cogito, ergo Sum" exists. That is: If we make the leap of faith Berkley rejects, then we can not ever have "conclusive proof” of any part of physics. Correctly done, physic does not claim any “conclusive proofs,” nor should it.
What is the essence of physic is very much like the essence of astronomy was to Ptolemy (or Copernicus) namely to construct a model which removes the need for recording the results of all experiment as independent results (Where the planets were on various nights in their case.). A model that lets one usually predict the results of experiments before doing them. (When an eclipse would occur etc, in their case.)
In the case of the photon model, we have found that to be a very good model. It consolidates a huge amount of experimental results and predicts quite well. That is all physics can or should ask. - The question you are asking is not part of physics. Even if you were to invent a completely different model of light that also explained (consolidated) every known experiment and predicted equally well, still you could not claim that your model was the "true" one. It would be like in the very early days of some physical models. (I forget exactly what the high-energy physics problem was, but it had eight equally good and different models for several years. Fortunately some good mathematical physicists were eventually able to show they all were just different forms of the same, not different, model. In the early days of quantum mechanics, the "matrix model" and the "wave equation" were thought by some to be different. - They certainly appear very different, but I think some mathematicians already knew that they too were equivalent, just different forms of the same relationships.
You say you have little physics background, but perhaps you know that all smooth curves, which are variations with time, t, of form y = F(t) between T = A and T = B can be broken up into a sum of Fourier components. With this “ Fourier model” of the curve it is much easier to predict the output when the curve is the input to a transform, such as an audio amplifier with gain a function of frequency, than working with the original curve. PHYSIS IS JUST THE CONSTRUCTION OF USEFUL MODELS, not any irrefutable statement about reality. Bishop Berkley proved that with irrefutable logic.
SUMMARY: You are wasting your time. Neither your hoped for alternative theory nor the current “photon theory” will ever be proven “conclusively.”
We already have a very good model for light. If some day some experimental result does contradict the predictions of this "photon" model, then it will need to be changed (or totally replaced) but until that "conflicting experiment" is done
You are wasting your time. I hope you see this now as I will not waste much more of mine trying to help you if you can not understand this is true.
Billy T why do you feel that i am after the degree of conclusivity you refer to?
Of course ultimately none of it can be proved but certainly to a certain level.I work with evidences all the time, even though I know that the philosophers will argue that the evidences are inconclusive.
All I am asking is similar to asking for "the claim that an apple exists" to be at least proven to have some existance by the rules of evidence as accepted by the general community.
At present you are claiming an "apple" exists based on circumstancial evidence as no one has actually sighted the "apple" and I am puzzled why that is acceptable and sufficient when in many other areas of science the quality of proof has to be considerably higher.
To me it is no different to say 2 billion Christians believing in the existance of God due to the circumstancial evidence of his effects on their lives even though none have sighted the cause of those effects [ God ]. Science will discredit this religious proof yet simultaneously cling to something just as circumstancial.
I am not asking for religious proof I am asking for scientific proof and am being ridiculed for doing so which I find quite ironic....
I am not very interested in discussing philosophy here and going on about ultimate truths etc. I am only interested in testing the quality of evidence supporting the photons free running nature. And not only do I find that the quality is extremely low it is virtually non-existant.
Given how much you guys are prepared to adapt the photon theory to other observations such as dreaming up gravity wakes etc shows just how strongly you want the theory to be correct. [ not unlike the religious evangelist]
So what now?
You are expecting me to believe in something that hasn't been proven to the usually serious levels required by science.
Conclusions:
We know that time is involved in energy transmission.
We know that distance effects the time factor.
We know that the effect is fairly constant.
We speculate using a photon particle, wave model as to the mechanism of that transmission and in doing so generate a hypothetical relative time universe.
We have built an entire theoretical science based on that speculation.
We only have a hypothetical solution to the question of energy transmission across distances of vacuum or space.
That is some of what I see...what do you see?
Of course ultimately none of it can be proved but certainly to a certain level.I work with evidences all the time, even though I know that the philosophers will argue that the evidences are inconclusive.
All I am asking is similar to asking for "the claim that an apple exists" to be at least proven to have some existance by the rules of evidence as accepted by the general community.
At present you are claiming an "apple" exists based on circumstancial evidence as no one has actually sighted the "apple" and I am puzzled why that is acceptable and sufficient when in many other areas of science the quality of proof has to be considerably higher.
To me it is no different to say 2 billion Christians believing in the existance of God due to the circumstancial evidence of his effects on their lives even though none have sighted the cause of those effects [ God ]. Science will discredit this religious proof yet simultaneously cling to something just as circumstancial.
I am not asking for religious proof I am asking for scientific proof and am being ridiculed for doing so which I find quite ironic....
I am not very interested in discussing philosophy here and going on about ultimate truths etc. I am only interested in testing the quality of evidence supporting the photons free running nature. And not only do I find that the quality is extremely low it is virtually non-existant.
Given how much you guys are prepared to adapt the photon theory to other observations such as dreaming up gravity wakes etc shows just how strongly you want the theory to be correct. [ not unlike the religious evangelist]
So what now?
You are expecting me to believe in something that hasn't been proven to the usually serious levels required by science.
Conclusions:
We know that time is involved in energy transmission.
We know that distance effects the time factor.
We know that the effect is fairly constant.
We speculate using a photon particle, wave model as to the mechanism of that transmission and in doing so generate a hypothetical relative time universe.
We have built an entire theoretical science based on that speculation.
We only have a hypothetical solution to the question of energy transmission across distances of vacuum or space.
That is some of what I see...what do you see?
I thought that because you asked for "conclusive proof" of photon existence.
But I assume you do accept lots of things, such as atoms of the "atomic theory" which was held to be very speculative until about 1919 when some very careful work in France did confirm Einstein's predictions about the vertical distribution of particles in a "Brownian Motion" liquid. Einstein's predicted distribution (solution) assumed water molecules of mass 18AU existed and would have failed if they did not. Not sure, but think that it was for this that Einstein officially recieved his only Nobel prize. (BTW, he did not get the money - his ex wife did - he sighed his rights, if any, away to her as part of the divorce several years before winning it. She bought one or two apartment buldings in Paris with the money. might even be the reason why he never got one for relativity. By edit: Memory is clearing: The one he got was for the photo-electric effect, I think, not the theory of vertical density in Brownian liquid, but that confirmation of the "atomic theory" made very big change in man's paragim for understanding the world. - Fourth graders now belive in atoms - at 1900, most scientists at least doubted their existence! - very much for same reason you doubt the existence of photons: the absence of any "apple proof")*
Many very small things, like electrons, atoms, virus can not be "proven" to exist as apples can be by bring one in as evidence and saying "here is one" - Photons are in this group, all of which require instruments to INFER their existence as that is the simplest model for understanding the observable(s) we can see, (meter's needle position, click rate of a Geiger counter, light pattern on a screen, tracks in photo graphic film or cloud chambers, image in electron microscope, etc) that these instruments provide.
(I might also note that some things we do see are not real, like straight stick bending where it enters clear still water. - Even the “apple proof“ can not be trusted in all cases. The model can some times over rule the “apple proof”!)
Are you equally unhappy with the theory/ model of: electrons, radioactivity, comic rays, atoms virus, etc.? If not why not? none of them have that good old "apple" proof: "Here is one." We only find postulating them to be very useful models, as is the case with the postulated existence of the photon.
------------------------
*my head is full of the strangest little facts sometimes they get briely mixed up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct. My discussion with Billy is a sidetrack.
but when we postualte that photons do gravitate, we established that the attraction is not necessarily mutual between any given pair of photons, meaning that your derived consequences are questionable.
Interesting speculation, but useless without quantification. Given the number of photons emitted from any star, I suspect that the statistical variation in their distribution would produce negligible clumping out to a very large distance... we could speculate that the result would be unmeasurable out to googols of light years as easily as anything else.
I also urge you read up on GR, particularly on the notion of "mass/energy density".
exactly.....we do agree...but it must always be remembered that they are just that postulated models and nothing more until proven otherwise.
If a postulated model has evidence to support it in the sense I am talking about it no longer is just a postulated model and gain a greater degree of reality.
Photon theory as you have rightly stated is only a model and one that requires further evidence before graduating to become law.
There are certain laws for example that are beyond doubt [ even if in philosophy they may be] such as cause and effect, many of Newtons laws about motion [ relating to inertia ] etc. Laws of thermo dynamics such as no energy can be destroyed or created are possibly erroneous and need further research [ assumes a universal closed energy system ]
It seems it is often forgotten just how tenuous our models may be and maybe this is what drives this thread, to remind oursleves of our limited understanding.
To me it is inefficient to speculate about photon behaviour if we have yet to show that it exists as a free ranging entity. It is however useful to hold the photon as an abstract or model but always remembering the limitations and abstractive nature of such a model.
By asking the question about the ambiguity of evidence used to explain this pheno I am merely highlighting the weakness in assuming something as valid before appropriate proofs are achieved. And with out a doubt most in the scientific community have assumed the photon models veracity with out question and this is a dangerous intellectual trap.
I can imagine the enourmous modelling that has been dione to support the ntion of a photon model. The amount of hours spent adapting the photon to observation. Our photon has become the chameleon of science. Taking what ever form it needs to take to facilitate observation based on a possible flawed premise. This I find incredible that the fine intellects of our science community can allow such to happen with such ease.
The example of photon gravity is a good case in question, possibly next it will be suggested that the photon is a free running Higgs bosun, a micro black hole, a pseudo particle that travels facing backwards and other just as incredible and IMO fanciful adaptations.
Possibly if a little time was spent on the original premise we may find something a little better to use as a model , that requires not as many adaptations in the future and one that includes inertia and other more fundamental aspects of the universes structure and mechanics.
A good example is the question of why we are looking for a particle premised gravity, and I would suggest simply because we are locked into the idea of Light speed being a speed limitation which is derived from a model [photon]that produces such a result.
Yet I would suggest that no such travel limitation need to apply to gravity and it is only our strong belief in an unproven model that promotes such thinking. So we are looking for something that simply may not exist.
So if I was in charge of a research budget even though not a scientist my self I would recommend that we find reason to support the notion that is leading all the other research and that is the reality of a free running photon model.