Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/19/04
- Next message: Jeff Relf: "Re: Newsgroup etiquette."
- Previous message: Robert Newson: "Re: Linuxes are all proprietary."
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:17:08 +0200
TomGee wrote:
> 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.
No, you haven't - since what you wrote about it clearly contradicted
the definition of that term.
BTW, why did you feel the need to snip the links which supported my
point and disproved yours?
> 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.
I did show that, and you have left the thread then.
And you keep ignoring the links I provided.
>>>>
>>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,
Thanks for admitting this.
> just like all of your own wild assertions which you have
> failed to support. Pot. Kettle. Black. Oh, this is, sooo fun!
I did support my assertion. You merely failed to understand my
explanations.
>>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?
If you felt the need to explain where your sentiments arose, then
why do you call it irrelevant now?
>>>>Who are the ones who speculate that dark energy is only at certain
>>>>locations, but not necessarily anywhere else?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>>Dito.
>>
>>
>
> Ditto.
I see that you still do not bother to support your assertions.
>>>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.
You made the assertion first, hence the burden of prood is obviously
on you.
>>>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.
It's not my fault that you are unable to arrive at valid logic
conclusions from what I wrote.
>>>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.
Oh, yes, you conveniently snipped this, as I already pointed out in
the last post. Apparently you hoped that no one will notice.
> 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."
You *also* said:
"However, it seems to present us
with some problems in relating the dark matter/energy to concepts like
the "quantum vacuum", "quantum fields" (in all their glory),
"something-from-nothing particle pairs", "negative mass and energy",
and others which I cannot think of right offhand. It seems to me that
all of those things are directly related to dark matter/energy, but
everyone seems afraid to mention it first."
I have shown conclusively that *not* everyone is 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 cannot find where I said that.
Search a bit back. As already mentioned, you snipped that.
Quote again:
"However, it seems to present us
with some problems in relating the dark matter/energy to concepts like
the "quantum vacuum", "quantum fields" (in all their glory),
"something-from-nothing particle pairs", "negative mass and energy",
and others which I cannot think of right offhand. It seems to me that
all of those things are directly related to dark matter/energy, but
everyone seems afraid to mention it first."
> But why is that so much more
> important to you than my alternate model?
Why do you think that this is more important to me than your model?
It was simply one point among several on which I chose to comment.
I never said or even implied anywhere that this is more important to me
than your 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?
*yawn* Nice straw men.
>>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.
Or someone who sees through your obfuscations.
>>>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?
*sigh*
You wanted to have a word to distinguish a certain type of particles
from real particles. That's clear. But: Why did you choose the term
"virtual particles" to denote these particles, and not any other term?
And again: you have *not* explained why you chose a term with a
precisely defined meaning to mean something different for you.
Say, are you really too dumb to understand my argument, or are you
merely playing dumb for obfuscation?
>>> 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,
Below is no support by you. Merely a bunch of assertions and several
misunderstandings about SR.
> where's yours?
For example, in the FAQ pages.
>>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?
I, if you did not notice.
Evasion noted.
> It's just my opinion.
Yes. And I would like to know how you arrived at it. Why don't you
simply tell me? What are you afraid of?
> See below for the rest of my
> opinion. We are all free to believe whatever we it is we wish to
> believe.
Yes. But we are also free to ask others why they believe that, if you
did not notice.
> BTW, all that I write here is simply my own opinions;
> inventions of my mind.
Well, that's clear.
> 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.
Well, in my opinion, the things I commented on *had* 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
What do you mean by "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).
*sigh* Yet again:
A photon has no rest mass. It does have relativistic mass. And that
is fully consistent with the general equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.
And also with your formula E=mc^2+(energy of motion) above. There was
never any need to "throw out" anything.
You are not making any sense.
> So they used their magical math
> to invent the massless photon by simply dropping off the
> energy-of-motion factor
Absolute nonsense. The "energy of motion" factor for photons is p*c.
> and thus using momentum as that part of the
> mass/energy interdependence law which is the mass.
That part of the sentence does not make the slightest sense.
Well, the first part already did make no sense, too...
> 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
Non sequitur. Motion is relative, if you didn't notice.
> and so nothing can be at rest within the universe.
Nonsense.
I am at rest right now in my chair. If you think I am moving, please
tell me in which direction I am moving, and how I could measure that.
> 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!
Still utter nonsense. The massless photon was there right from the
start. It did not need to be created specifically.
> "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!"
What on earth is "energy which accrues to mass by virtue of its motion"
supposed to mean?
> "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!"
Absolute utter nonsense. The photon is in no way a special case.
It obeys the formula E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, as *every* *other*
particle also.
> "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."
No one ever said that photons are not real particles.
> "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."
What a bunch of silly straw man. You only show again and again and again
that you haven't got the *faintest* clue what you are talking about.
>>>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.
No. It is you who confuses rest mass and 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.
>>
>>
>
> Well, think about what that means, why doncha?
I have.
> A particle having no
> rest mass is a real particle as nothing can be "at rest" in this U.
1) The assertion that nothing can be at rest in an expanding universe
is still nonsense and shows nicely that you haven't got the faintest
clue of General Relativity.
2) The question if something can be at rest or not has nothing to do
with the question if a particle with no rest mass is a "real particle"
or not.
What on earth are you babbling about?
> except in our imaginations where we use the concept of "constant
> acceleration" in reference to two or more objects/systems.
And yet again, that part of the sentence is completely unrelated to
all you said before in that sentence.
> OTOH, a
> "relativistic mass" corresponds to reality in a most fundamental way.
How?
>>>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.
*sigh* It is more general since it
1) is equivalent to E = gamma m c^2 for particles with non-zero rest
mass; if you ask me for support for this: try to do the calculation
yourself - it is quite easy, and also can be found in any textbook on SR
2) gives E=pc for particles with zero rest mass, and we know already
from Maxwell's equations that photons indeed obey E=pc.
>>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,
Still nonsense.
> try to let that little bit of reality into your head.
Since this is not reality, but merely your total misunderstanding
of GR (and even SR), there is no reason to let this into my head.
> The only way your 2 formulas above
Err, I mentioned 3 formulas above. Which 2 do you mean?
> 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.
Absolute utter nonsense. They can be used in *all* situations.
> A photon in my model cannot be "at rest"
> because it is created from a moving light wave and a virtual particle.
Nice. Hint: in standard physics, a photon can also not be at rest.
> 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.
If you haven't noticed: in order to see something, photons have to
reach our eyes.
>>>- 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.
There was no proof by you above. Merely a bunch of assertions
and strange misunderstandings.
>>>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,
You want to claim that E=pc is not valid for photons? Oh my goodness.
Say, how silly do you plan to become?
f = c/lambda. Right?
E = hf. Right?
p = h/lambda. Right?
If you answered "right" to all, then E=pc follows automatically
(if you can't see *how* this follows, you only show again that you
don't understand even the most basic math). If you answered "wrong"
to any of those, you deny quite basic, very well established physics.
Oh, BTW, E=pc follows also directly from Maxwell's equations. Try
reading up on "Poynting's theorem" and "radiation pressure".
> where nothing can be at rest due at
> the least to the expansion motion of the universe.
That nonsense again.
> Your logic above
> is false because you start out with the conclusion that the photon is
> massless.
*sigh* Wrong. We know from Maxwell's equations that E=pc holds for
electromagnetic waves. Alternatively, we also know that from the three
equations above. Taking E=pc and E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 together
proves that m=0 for photons.
> Also, you have made the energy-of-motion factor to be the
> mass in E=mc^2,
Absolute utter nonsense. I did nothing like that.
> and that is false too, as that changes it to E=0c^2,
> which doesn't work.
*sigh* The "m" in E=mc^2 is the *relativistic* mass, not the *rest*
mass. The *rest* mass of photons is zero - the relativistic mass is
*not* zero.
Yet again, you show that you simply don't get this basic, crucial
distinction!
> Got any more of your little math tricks?
There are no "math tricks" here. Just *basic*, straightforward math.
>>>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?
To the observer. That is *basic* relativity.
> Do you deny that everything in the U. is in motion?
Yes, indeed. I am resting comfortably in my chair right in this
moment, for example.
> If so, state your case for that claim.
Experience.
>>>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,
No, in reality.
> where momentum is substituted for mass.
I do nothing like that.
> The
> latter formula above is not equivalent to the former one because of
> that substitution.
Since I did not make that substitution, your argument is irrelevant.
[snip]
>>>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
No, not at all. And yet again, you demonstrate that you are totally
unable to understand the difference between rest and relativistic mass.
> or totally unrelated;
"rest mass" is totally unrelated to "relativistic mass"? Or what do you
mean?
> you show no difference.
Huh?
Oh, I notice that you snipped the following exchange:
>>> Cool, huh? Man, nothing is impossible for math.
>>
>>Utter nonsense. Try proving that 1+1=3 with math.
I see that you don't bother to prove that. So, do you admit now that
your assertion "nothing is impossible for math" is wrong?
>>>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?
*sigh*
Are you *really* so dumb, or do you merely play dumb for obfuscation?
With "strange idea", I obviously meant the part about "via unexplained
powers and forces"!
>>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!
No, I know,
>>>>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?
Evasion noted. I talked about the *second* part of your sentence above,
so why do you feel the need to bring up the *first* part suddenly?
Yes, probability is a math construct. So what? So are also vectors,
differentation and integration, and a lot more things, which have been
used in physics for hundreds of years. Why don't you object to those
things, too?
>>>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.?
Err, depends on the wave, obviously!!!
[snip]
>>>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.
Try to understand what I meant here.
>>>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?
Yes. With the caveat that this "spreading out" is a figurative way
to express what really is happening. What really is happening is that
the *wave* spreads out over larger and larger spheres - and the
amplitude of the wave gives the probability to find a photon. Since the
wave is everywhere on the whole sphere, one can find photons on the
whole sphere.
As I said: that's similar to electrons in atoms.
>>>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,
What are the small circles supposed to represent? The photons, or what?
If yes, than that has nothing to do with how QFT actually describes
the relationship between photons and the wave.
> except in a
> spherical fashion which would make the gaps number many times those
> shown in my example. I make that very clear below:
For the 5th time: there are no gaps.
>>>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.
What, specifically, don't you understand?
Did you get my analogy to electrons in atoms?
>>>>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.
I refer to the energy density of a spherical wave spreading out from
a center. That has nothing at all to do with the BBT.
How many *basic* misunderstandings do you have? That's really incredible!
> Do you claim that light
> waves have an energy density which decreases as they spread out
> throughout the universe?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, that is quite basic electrodynamics!!!!!!!!
>>>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.
What is witty about pointing out that the energy density decreases
with 1/r^2? Yet again, that is absolutely basic electrodynamics.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Jeff Relf: "Re: Newsgroup etiquette."
- Previous message: Robert Newson: "Re: Linuxes are all proprietary."
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Is light a wave or a particle?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "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
|
