where does light from a torch go?
- Thread starter emanresU
- Start date
Still wrong, dav57. I am not creating my own physics. That would be idiotic - I'm not a professional physicist. So they aren't my explanations, they are the explanations of those who do physics for a living.
Russ - what are their explanations? Are they listened to without people resorting to shaming tactics and accusations of trolling?
Not as it bothers me particularly, because I'm more interested in sharing ideas and talking about the universe and i'm fairly capable of blocking out the rest of the noise coming from luddite corner.
Not as it bothers me particularly, because I'm more interested in sharing ideas and talking about the universe and i'm fairly capable of blocking out the rest of the noise coming from luddite corner.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
I hate being wrong. It irks me. Annoys me. And yes, shames me. Enough that whenever I'm wrong I try desperately to correct myself so I can stop being wrong. I'm hoping you have such a mechanism as well and through emphasis of just how wrong you are you will become too ashamed to continue on your wrong path and instead try to become right.
Well fair enough; you can ignore whomever you want and are free to remain as wrong as you want. Unfortunately though, you are also wrong about where the luddite corner is: you're the one in it. This is part of the depths of your wrongness: your whole approach to knowledge is wrong. You think you are trying to gain it when in fact you are fighting to remain ignorant and wrong.
Hey, folks! This silliness has gone on too long.Many of us have tried, tried, and TRIED to get him to see reason and it's just not working. At this point, I'm finished with this joker - and I suggest everyone else do the same. He'll eventually get tired of no one responding to his garbage and maybe go away. We sure don't need his idiocy here!!
Ok, so you guys accept that entangled particles obey laws of conservation such that they instantaneously communicate over vast distances? And you are willing to accept that because experimental data shows you it is true, despite the weirdness?
Yet you are catogorically unwilling to accept that light, despite it's observed weirdness, could possibly be attributed with simalarities surrounding conservation of energy. I haven't even claimed in a nasty way that I'm right and i'm more than happy to accept that I'm wrong but you guys seem to love jumping at the chance to ridicule any suggestion which falls outside of orthodox textbook physics because it's an easy hit for you. You get more of a kick from making accusations of trolling or calling someone a joker than actually exploring the potential for evolving ideas, which I agree, are only ideas. I get that; no problem.
I came on this forum several years ago and met the same widespread resistance to the notion that time doesn't exist. Back then, I was amongst a very tiny handful with similar views and yet now, following several years of debate, it appears that far more people hold the same view - that time doesn't exist. I don't know how long it will take for mainstream science to acknowledge the concept of a timeless Universe and write it into the textbooks but it's certainly on its way in terms of gathering pace and evolving.
I happen to hold a "view", an "idea" that waves don't actually exist. Ever. But, like time, I don't think you guys are ready for it yet. The more i think about it, the more I see waves as a mathematical and graphical representation of what we, as observers, receive from a source. i have gone as far as to suggest that you can't actually ever see a wave. You can't see it from side-on and you never actually get to see it even when it's landed and interacted. Because at that point the wave (whatever it is) has transformed and collapsed instantaneously to a photon, which, incidentally can't be detected in flight either.
So I hold this "idea" and share it with you, and firstly you disagree, which is fine, but secondly you have no proof to offer in terms of scientific experiment to show that we have actually ever observed an em wave, and furthermore you don't want to explore any notion that, actually, perhaps it doesn't even exist in the form that we first thought in the first place. I'm simply suggesting that there is still a possibility that light itself could have similar properties to entangled particles and some form of instantaneous communication could be at work. The fact that waves might not exist is a premise which leads nicely to the fact that the speed of light is always viewed as a constant, but I guess you're looking for something more solid, which i also understand.
So I want you, the experts, to show me experimental evidence of observations of a wave in flight WITHOUT the wave having collapsed to a photon at a point of interaction. Can you do that? You showed me a polarising filter, but i'm afraid i'm not buying that one. You showed me a prism - nope. Show me a downconverter, and i won't buy that one either. So is there any way to look at a wave as it is - a wave? I hope you can help me put this one to bed. Thanks.
Yet you are catogorically unwilling to accept that light, despite it's observed weirdness, could possibly be attributed with simalarities surrounding conservation of energy. I haven't even claimed in a nasty way that I'm right and i'm more than happy to accept that I'm wrong but you guys seem to love jumping at the chance to ridicule any suggestion which falls outside of orthodox textbook physics because it's an easy hit for you. You get more of a kick from making accusations of trolling or calling someone a joker than actually exploring the potential for evolving ideas, which I agree, are only ideas. I get that; no problem.
I came on this forum several years ago and met the same widespread resistance to the notion that time doesn't exist. Back then, I was amongst a very tiny handful with similar views and yet now, following several years of debate, it appears that far more people hold the same view - that time doesn't exist. I don't know how long it will take for mainstream science to acknowledge the concept of a timeless Universe and write it into the textbooks but it's certainly on its way in terms of gathering pace and evolving.
I happen to hold a "view", an "idea" that waves don't actually exist. Ever. But, like time, I don't think you guys are ready for it yet. The more i think about it, the more I see waves as a mathematical and graphical representation of what we, as observers, receive from a source. i have gone as far as to suggest that you can't actually ever see a wave. You can't see it from side-on and you never actually get to see it even when it's landed and interacted. Because at that point the wave (whatever it is) has transformed and collapsed instantaneously to a photon, which, incidentally can't be detected in flight either.
So I hold this "idea" and share it with you, and firstly you disagree, which is fine, but secondly you have no proof to offer in terms of scientific experiment to show that we have actually ever observed an em wave, and furthermore you don't want to explore any notion that, actually, perhaps it doesn't even exist in the form that we first thought in the first place. I'm simply suggesting that there is still a possibility that light itself could have similar properties to entangled particles and some form of instantaneous communication could be at work. The fact that waves might not exist is a premise which leads nicely to the fact that the speed of light is always viewed as a constant, but I guess you're looking for something more solid, which i also understand.
So I want you, the experts, to show me experimental evidence of observations of a wave in flight WITHOUT the wave having collapsed to a photon at a point of interaction. Can you do that? You showed me a polarising filter, but i'm afraid i'm not buying that one. You showed me a prism - nope. Show me a downconverter, and i won't buy that one either. So is there any way to look at a wave as it is - a wave? I hope you can help me put this one to bed. Thanks.
It doesn't take expertise to rebut your statements. Just science.
Are you another sockpuppet of the other 57 series?
Are you another sockpuppet of the other 57 series?
For God's sake, explain to me why someone exploring an idea is so wrong?
The moderators will see that your accusation is nonsense.
Can you answer my question above, I really need to know if waves have ever been viewed in their actual form rather than via some type of interaction which is converted to a mathematical or graphical representation.
I get it, some of you guys get challenged to the point that you're uncomfortable in the fact that you can't answer questions outside of your sphere of understanding and thus brain meltdown ensues and out pop the shaming tactics and put-downs. That must be a nice bit of fun for you. Haha, lol, now please try and answer the question that i have. Have we ever "seen" waves somehow in their raw form?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Of course I said no such thing. Don't be absurd.
There is nothing in principle to stop a photon being emitted and just passing through the universe indefinitely. Of course, in practice, photons are likely to eventually encounter something and get absorbed, but there is no reason why they have to. In fact the well-known "echo" of the Big Bang is exactly this.
But I'm tiring of this nonsense. You seem to have an idée fixe.
Since you're behaving like a crank, and since I've lost track of the brand 57 sockpuppets, I have no choice but to assume that you're the same bum.
You haven't asked a question. You're only making absurd declarative statements, casting them as interrogatives.
You've never seen a wave?
:shrug:
I absolutely assure you that I am not a sock puppet but I absolutely assure you that I could be a crank
By the way, I think my question is fairly straightforward and can almost demand either a yes or no answer. Have waves been observed WITHOUT first having interacted with something that has forced it to collapse to a photon?
You are speculating based on ignorance. It is like someone who has never seen a car speculating about how a car might work instead of finding information about it and learning it. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong way to learn something that is already known and speculating is the wrong way. That's what's so wrong about what you are doing: it isn't just that the things you know are wrong; it is more important that the way you are trying to find knowledge itself is wrong. Fix that and it will start to fix the other wrongs.
If that were true, you would have accepted it already.
That sort of statement is a dodge. You've made a lot of wrong statements in the thread, but seem to think you can justify all of them by bringing up one unrelated thing that can't be done (Unless of course I'm wrong and you are doing it on purpose for trolling - I waver). It doesn't fix your problem; it doesn't fix the other wrongness:
1. You've claimed, repeatedly, that the universe has an edge.
2. You've claimed, repeatedly, that a photon that never hits anything would be a violation of conservation of energy.
Correcting the more basic wrongs would at least be a starting point: it would demonstrate that you are being truthful when you say you are willing to be wrong and thus willing to learn. Then after fixing the easy mistakes we could explore the implications - if any - of entanglement.
This forum attracts crackpots. Don't mistake discussion with crackpots for learning - or, dear god, doing, science.
Nope. Wrong. I'm being honest about my motivation and have told you what it is....well...half of it anyway: I want to help you or if you ultimately don't want help, motivate you to leave and improve the forum by leaving.
No. Obviously. You cannot view a wave while it is in transit.
....not that that gives the phrase "in their raw form" any meaning...and it isn't directly connected to your other wrong speculation/claims.
"No. Obviously. You cannot view a wave while it is in transit. "
Ok, thanks. At last. But that's not what others have said so far, which is partly why we've gone round in circles!
So, could I/we speculate that waves are only interpreted as graphical/mathematical constructs following an interaction at the observer's end where a photon appears? i.e. we can plot the data and transform what we "see" into understandable information, but we can never be sure, for example, that waves actually look like what we are used to seeing in a textbook?
I'm beginning to think that waves are nothing like what we think they are. And the word "wave" naturally conjures up a visual impression of a wavy thing! Would it be plausible to speculate that a wave could actually be something entirely different?
Ok, thanks. At last. But that's not what others have said so far, which is partly why we've gone round in circles!
So, could I/we speculate that waves are only interpreted as graphical/mathematical constructs following an interaction at the observer's end where a photon appears? i.e. we can plot the data and transform what we "see" into understandable information, but we can never be sure, for example, that waves actually look like what we are used to seeing in a textbook?
I'm beginning to think that waves are nothing like what we think they are. And the word "wave" naturally conjures up a visual impression of a wavy thing! Would it be plausible to speculate that a wave could actually be something entirely different?
"1. You've claimed, repeatedly, that the universe has an edge. "
I think the universe as we know it probably does have an edge. How can you prove that it doesn't? Surely it's only theoretical.
2. You've claimed, repeatedly, that a photon that never hits anything would be a violation of conservation of energy."
Yes, that's one of my "ideas". I'm not "claiming" that it's correct. This is part of my journey of exploration.
I think the universe as we know it probably does have an edge. How can you prove that it doesn't? Surely it's only theoretical.
2. You've claimed, repeatedly, that a photon that never hits anything would be a violation of conservation of energy."
Yes, that's one of my "ideas". I'm not "claiming" that it's correct. This is part of my journey of exploration.
Why would that be a violation of the conservations of energy?
Your rather odd idea of photons would be a violation of the conservation of energy, though. I think you are saying that if you turn on a torch and shine it into space until the batteries die you do not believe that there would be EM wave eminating from the torch. You think, if I understand you correctly, that there is nothing eminating from the torch until the (potential?) photons intersect matter. That would be a clear violation of the consevation of energy, not to mention it is absurd.
PS: Time does exist, and I am currently wasting mine.
The moderators for Science and Math, have been absent for sometime. Presumably because they have more pressing real life commitments to deal with.
The only real moderation right now is behavior related and at times sock puppet bans when they can be confirmed.