Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/18/04
- Next message: zigoteau: "Re: wave and light"
- Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Re: gas filling of car tires"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: mitch perkins: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:19:03 +0200
TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ciea20$3mi$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>TomGee wrote:
Oh, hi again, Tom! Have you figured out what "inversely proportional"
means in the meantime?
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>The term "dark" was used instead of "invisible" because the latter
>>>word is too close to the fantasy worlds of magic and metaphysics, and
>>>using it in scientific works would only make physics look bad.
>>
>>Hint: in works on QCD, physicists freely use even words like "ghosts".
>>They don't care if their usage of words makes "physics look bad".
>>
>>
>
> Then why did they not use the word "invisible"?
I don't know. But your assertion above that it was because they feeled
that would make physics look bad is unsupported. It's simply a wild
guess by you.
>>>We have observed certain effects at certain locations and some
>>>speculate that at those locations is where the so-called dark
>>>matter/energy exists, but not necessarily anywhere else.
>>
>>Which effects do you mean, specifically? The rotation curves of galaxies
>>perhaps? Or the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters?
>>
>>
>
> Pick one or more. There are many, but none are specifically more
> relevant to my point than any others. So what difference does it make
> which one?
I would like to concentrate on specific examples instead of vague
generalities.
>>And who are the ones who speculate that dark matter is only at these
>>locations?
>>
>>
>
> Do you want names?
Yes.
> TomGee for one. Irrelevant to our subject.
You made the assertion. If you think this is irrelevant, why did you
bring it up?
>>Who are the ones who speculate that dark energy is only at certain
>>locations, but not necessarily anywhere else?
>>
>>
>
> See above.
Dito.
>>I've never seen any scientist being afraid to mention that dark energy
>>is probably related to the quantum vacuum.
>>
>>
>
> Your inference that no scientist is afraid of that could be true only
> if you personally polled every live scientist and every dead one too.
I did not make such an inference. I only said that I never saw such
a scientists. And implied that this looks unlikely to me.
*You* made the assertion that scientists are afraid of this. Please
support that assertion.
> Obviously you have not and cannot, so yours is not a logical argument.
Well, fortunately I did not make that argument - it is merely a silly
straw man you created.
> Don't you have anything relevant to say about my ideas?
I have. See my last post and this one. If you think that what I
contribute is not relevant, that's your problem.
> It is
> obvious you are grasping at straws to keep from drowning.
Only in your dreams.
>>There are quite a lot of
>>articles like these:
>><http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html>
>>
>><http://www.physorg.com/preview290.html>
>><http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/pdf/astro-ph/0408112>
>>
>>
> So what?
Err, the existence of these articles is evidence against your assertion
that scientists are afraid of mentioning such things. Notice that I do
not claim to have proved that there are *no* such scientists. Merely
provided evidence that obviously not *all* scientists are afraid of
this. And hence I have disproven your claim that *everyone* is afraid
to mention this.
I notice that you conveniently snipped that assertion of you. Apparently
you hoped that no one will notice...
>>>I hope that is sufficiently specific as to my use
>>>of the term, "virtual particles".
>>
>>"virtual particle" has a very precisely defined meaning in physics.
>>So, if you mean something else, why don't you choose another term
>>for that?
>>
>>
>
> I just explained to you above precisely why I chose that term!
No, you didn't. You merely said that you *did* choose that term,
and explained what you mean by it. Quote:
"I have used the word "Virtual" to distinguish invisible particles, dark
matter/energy, from "real" particles. Real particles are those which
we can observe, as compared to the dark matter and energy which we
cannot see."
That does in no way explain *why* you chose that term. And especially
you have *not* explained why you chose a term with a precisely defined
meaning to mean something different for you.
> Why do
> you ask a question for which I have just provided you the answer?
Because you didn't provide the answer to the question I ask above.
> Be
> sure to take off your shoes before you stick your feet in your mouth.
> As I have asked you before, Stop Jumping To Conclusions!! Read
> carefully first, then think before you begin your childish attacks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>>>Correct. We are from the crib taught that particles move along with
>>>the light wave, but we never think to wonder how that is possible. We
>>>said right off that quanta could not do that because they have mass;
>>>so enterprising physicists invented the massless photon (as a "special
>>>case" so they did not have to overthrow E=mc^2+(energy of motion)).
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>
>
> No, right.
No, wrong.
> No support for your claim, you lose by default.
Well, you also provided no support for your claim above that
"enterprising scientists invented the massless photon so they did not
have to overthrow E=mc^2+(energy of motion)". So, who loses here?
>>The idea that photons are massless was *not* invented due to
>>that reason;
>>
>>
>
> IMHO, that is indeed the very reason.
Well, your opinion is not automatically the truth, if you did not
notice. How did you arrive at that opinion? What evidence do you have
to back up your claim?
>>and the photons are in no way a special case. The formula
>>E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 applies to *all* particles, massive and massless.
>>
>>
>
> But it is well-known (except by you, as per your own acknowledgement
> previously) that no particle can be totally massless,
Depends on if you talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. Particles
with no rest mass are entirely possible. And photons indeed have no
rest mass. And gluons.
> as per E=mc^2
> and as per the interdependent relationship of mass and energy in the
> Principle of Mass and Energy.
*sigh* I see that you still confuse rest mass and relativistic mass.
Try reading, yet again, these page:
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>
And this time, try to understand them, please.
Photons are massless in the sense that they have no *rest* mass. They
*do* have relativistic mass!
> For a particle to be completely
> massless, both the formula and the Principle must be overthrown.
No, not at all. The formula E = mc^2 is perfectly compatible with
a particle which has no *rest* mass, but only *relativistic* mass.
> Instead, what you have hitched your wagon to is an equation that
> ignores both of them
Nonsense. The equation E2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 is more general than
E = m c^2 or even E = gamma m c^2. It ignores nothing - in contrast,
it incorparates *more*! (BTW, please notice that in the first and third
formula, "m" means the rest mass, whereas in the second formula, it
means the relativistic mass)
> - remember that I have said anything is possible
> with math constructs.
And that is still utter nonsense.
> Let me explain why I think it is a special case.
>
> The Principle of Mass and Energy is the general case of mass and
> energy as a law of nature based on what we can observe as reality.
> The formula E=mc^2+(energy of motion) describes this reality.
And that formula is still valid for photons. For them, since m = 0,
it reduces to E = energy of motion. I.e.: E = pc. Do you want to
claim that that latter formula is wrong?
> When
> Einstein dropped off the "energy of motion" factor, the formula no
> longers describes reality, but a special case where we can disregard
> the factor of energy which an object's motion provides to that object,
> and about "rest mass". Now we are in Make-Believe Land because there
> can no instance in the universe where an object has no motion to it,
> simply because the U. is currently in a state of expansion.
Err, how do you get from "the universe expands" to "there is no
object in it which has no motion"? If you did not notice: motion is
relative.
> That is
> alright, however, as long as we don't come to believe the formula
> still describes reality.
The formula E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 does indeed describe reality.
It is equivalent to the formula you yourself propose above:
E = m c^2 + (energy of motion).
> But guess what? Sure enough, many did that
> very same thing and taught others that it was reality.
Who?
> From there, people constructed math equations in such a way as to
> "prove" that massless photons are reality!
*sigh* You really haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about.
> Fortunately, some thinkers
> thought it important to admit that their massless particles have some
> mass
*sigh*
Photons have no *rest* mass. They *do* have *relativistic* mass. Try to
understand the difference.
> even though, they believe, it is a mass way too small to count it
> as mass.
Who says anything like that?
> Cool, huh? Man, nothing is impossible for math.
Utter nonsense. Try proving that 1+1=3 with math.
>>>But there is one bug they have not yet figured out:
>>>
>>>The surface area of a light wave grows without any discernable breaks
>>>along its globular wave crest. Light waves propagate in a spherical
>>>fashion and if photon particles move with each light wave, as the wave
>>>expands like a balloon, where do the additional particles come from,
>>>those needed to fill in the gaps where the wave expands?
>>
>>You might consider that photons, like all quantum particles, have not
>>a fixed position.
>>
>>
>
> I have considered that, as I have posted much about that here in this
> ng. You are convinced that all quantum particles move about through
> space via unexplained powers and forces,
Nonsense. Where did you get that strange idea from?
> and you are allowed to think
> what you wish. My model gives you an alternate way of thinking about
> these things, and my ideas do not just involve time and space, but
> also gravitation and light, as if it is all correlated to my basic
> ideas about time and space.
If you can make any quantitative predictions based on your ideas, feel
free to show your work.
> You have provided no logical argument to
> overthrow any of my ideas so far.
Correction: you have not understood all the logical arguments I
presented so far, and therefore did not notice that I overthrew your ideas.
>>In contrast, the probability to find them at any
>>given point is given by a wave function - essentially by the
>>electromagnetic wave.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I am surprised by your relevant point! My response is that
> "probability" is a math construct, again, and "wave function" is an
> unfalsifiable idea and so it is not even a theory (or if it is, it
> should not be).
And yet again, that is absolute utter nonsense. Wave functions are a
part of Quantum Mechanics, which *is* a theory, and *is* falsifiable.
> BTW, how is it that they can found at "any given
> point", as you say?
They can be found at all points where the wave is non-zero.
> Could it be possible that space is composed of
> these virtual particles and so they exist everywhere real matter does
> not?
Err, we were talking about real photons here, not about any virtual
particles.
>>So there are no "breaks", since the photons are,
>>in a sense, "spread out" over space (like electrons can be pictured
>>as charge clouds in the atoms).
>>
>>
>
> Yes, now we are getting to the point where you will be convinced of my
> ideas, if you are so disposed. So you say that photons are "spread
> out", is that before the light wave passes through them, or does the
> wave "spread them out"?
Neither. Everywhere where the wave is non-zero, there are "spread out"
photons. They travel with the wave, in a sense. Ever heard of Feynman's
"sum over paths"?
> If it is the latter, how does the wave do
> that? Where does it get all those particles to fill in the gaps
> between the particles
There *are* no gaps between the particles, since the photons are spread out!
> as the wave spreads outwardly and forces the
> particles to distance themselves from each other?
*sigh* As I said above, photons do not have a fixed position, but
are "spread out". So it makes no sense to talk about the "distance"
between them. Every one of the photons is spread out over the entire
sphere!
> Draw a circle using smaller circles to form the perimenter. Now
> enlarge that circle. In order to do that, one must spread out the
> small perimeter circles and thus gaps are left between them.
What has that to do with the actual electromagnetic wave? Are you
somehow confused by Huygen's principle, or what?
> If the
> larger circle is the wave and the smaller circles are particles,
They aren't. For the 10th time: the photons are "spread out" over the
sphere, not located at distinct points on it.
> then
> in order to maintain the previous relationship between them, more
> particles are needed to fill in the gaps.
Try realizing that you start from a false premise.
>>And no additional photons are needed.
>>The energy density in a spherical wave thins out as the surface of the
>>sphere increases, and the probability to find a photon at any given
>>point also decreases, i.e. the observed density of photons also thins
>>out. There is no disagreement here.
>>
>>
>
> Man, you need a lifeguard bad! Tell us about this new-fangled idea of
> yours where the energy density "thins out".
Do you dispute that the energy density decreases with the distance
to the source of the spherical wave?
> At what point does the
> thinning process effectively cancels out the light wave? One ly, one
> million lys, ten trillion lys? Don't make it too short else we won't
> have the good ol' cbr anymore.
Obviously nowhere, since this goes with 1/r^2.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: zigoteau: "Re: wave and light"
- Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Re: gas filling of car tires"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: mitch perkins: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: mitch perkins: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
