Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/19/04
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: infinite secrets"
- Previous message: Darren Rhodes: "Re: MAJOR WinXP security bug"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Sep 2004 08:32:38 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cih93n$3do$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> 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?
>
>
No, but I have always known its meaning in our time. I responded to
your claim about that by showing how your logical deduction made no
sense, so now it is up to you to show that it does. You can't,
because it doesn't.
> >>
> >>
>Snip....
> 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.
>
>
Yes, it is, just like all of your own wild assertions which you have
failed to support. Pot. Kettle. Black. Oh, this is, sooo fun!
>
>
> You made the assertion. If you think this is irrelevant, why did you
> bring it up?
>
>
To explain where my sentiments arose. Why is that important?
>
>
> >>Who are the ones who speculate that dark energy is only at certain
> >>locations, but not necessarily anywhere else?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > See above.
>
> Dito.
>
>
Ditto.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
No. You support your assertion that it mine is untrue.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Yes, you did. "It follows...." from your statement. Heh, heh.
>
>
> > So what?
>
> Err, the existence of these articles is evidence against your assertion
> that scientists are afraid of mentioning such things.
>
>
I cannot find where I said that. I said, "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."
>
>
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 cannot find where I said that. But why is that so much more
important to you than my alternate model? Do you feel that I am out
to prove something you believe in so strongly that your world will
crash down upon your head, or is it because you wish only to fill up
this space with silly things so as to distract me and others from
important ideas? Isn't that what ng trolls do?
>
>
> I notice that you conveniently snipped that assertion of you. Apparently
> you hoped that no one will notice...
>
>
Only a childish moron would think 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.
>
>
Just what do you think "...to distinguish...." means?
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
My support is provided below, where's yours?
>
>
> 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?
>
>
Who cares? It's just my opinion. See below for the rest of my
opinion. We are all free to believe whatever we it is we wish to
believe. BTW, all that I write here is simply my own opinions;
inventions of my mind. This venue to me is just the place to say what
you and I believe. Don't take every little thing so seriously unless
it truly has to do with the subject in point.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
>
Relativists threw out the relativistic photon when they were
confronted with the fact that a massless photon cannot exist so long
as its energy-of-motion factor is included (as in the original
E=mc^2+(energy of motion) formula). So they used their magical math
to invent the massless photon by simply dropping off the
energy-of-motion factor and thus using momentum as that part of the
mass/energy interdependence law which is the mass.
It was such a wonderful idea that people grabbed at it and saved their
sanity! But alas!, it was only make-believe, for everything in the U.
is in motion due basically to its expansion and so nothing can be at
rest within the universe.
But Supermath does not cow down to anything, especially facts! With
another flip of its arm in a Mandrakian magical wave, the massless
photon was created!
"Say, look here! If we just drop off that pesky energy which accrues
to mass by virtue of its motion, we can cancel out the entire mass of
the particle!"
"But if we do that, we are no longer talking about reality but about a
'special case' which in fact does not exist except in our
imaginations!"
"Yes, but it can be a useful math tool to for scientists everywhere,
and as long as we state it is not a really real particle, we are not
cheating."
"Yes, but what if others forget and begin to think we are proving that
real massless photons exist, what then?"
"I should not worry about that, as the masses are asses, to quote a
famous philosopher, and if they come to believe that, so much the
better for us."
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
No, it is you is confusing fantasy with reality.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Well, think about what that means, why doncha? A particle having no
rest mass is a real particle as nothing can be "at rest" in this U.
except in our imaginations where we use the concept of "constant
acceleration" in reference to two or more objects/systems. OTOH, a
"relativistic mass" corresponds to reality in a most fundamental way.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
You say it is more general, but you do not support that statement.
>
>
> 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)
>
>
But nothing in the U. can be at rest, Bjoern, try to let that little
bit of reality into your head. The only way your 2 formulas above can
be true is when they are used in a situation where two or more
objects/systems are considered to be in a state of constant
acceleration wrt each other. A photon in my model cannot be "at rest"
because it is created from a moving light wave and a virtual particle.
The particle is at rest in space but exists only as a discrete
particle invisible to us until and only when the force of a light wave
transforms it into a particle of light.
>
>
> > - remember that I have said anything is possible
> > with math constructs.
>
> And that is still utter nonsense.
>
>
Not so, as shown by my proof above.
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
Yes, it is is false wrt reality, where nothing can be at rest due at
the least to the expansion motion of the universe. Your logic above
is false because you start out with the conclusion that the photon is
massless. Also, you have made the energy-of-motion factor to be the
mass in E=mc^2, and that is false too, as that changes it to E=0c^2,
which doesn't work. Got any more of your little math tricks?
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
Relative to what? Do you deny that everything in the U. is in motion?
If so, state your case for that claim.
>
>
> > 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).
>
>
Only in our imaginations, where momentum is substituted for mass. The
latter formula above is not equivalent to the former one because of
that substitution.
>
>
> > But guess what? Sure enough, many did that
> > very same thing and taught others that it was reality.
>
> Who?
>
>
You, for one.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
What you just said is tautologous or totally unrelated; you show no
difference.
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
Oh, to you, do not particles move about through space?
>
>
> Correction: you have not understood all the logical arguments I
> presented so far, and therefore did not notice that I overthrew your ideas.
>
>
Yeah, you wish!
>
> >>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.
>
>
But isn't probability a math construct?
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
And where is that in our U.?
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> > 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"?
>
>
Yes, but there must be a better way for you to explain your meaning.
>
>
> > 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!
> *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!
>
>
Are you saying that massless photon particles can "spread out" like
sausages as the wave expands throughout the entire universe?
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
The em wave expands similar to our perimeter above, except in a
spherical fashion which would make the gaps number many times those
shown in my example. I make that very clear below:
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
You can say that 10000 times more but no one will understand what you
mean by it until you can explain your point better.
>
>
> >>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?
>
>
It is my understanding that the "energy density" you refer to has to
do with the BBT and not with light waves. Do you claim that light
waves have an energy density which decreases as they spread out
throughout the universe?
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
You must appear very witty to people at parties bent on impressing
you.
TomGee
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: infinite secrets"
- Previous message: Darren Rhodes: "Re: MAJOR WinXP security bug"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
