Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
From: JM Albuquerque (jm.aREM.OVE_at_sapo.pt)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Free Will?"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Free Will?"
- In reply to: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Next in thread: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Reply: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:43:29 -0000
Very good explanation about "what is light".
Congratulation.
Nevertheless it must be wrong.
Summarising what you've said:
QUOTE from "bz":
'Light waves' are small and travel in a straight line. It is only when you
have a lot of 'light waves' emitted by an omnidirectional source that you
see something that looks like spherical expansion, and THOSE 'light waves'
fall off in intensity as the square of the distance from the source, unlike
those in a beam which do NOT fall off with distance traveled(in a vacuum),
if the beam has no divergence.
"A" wave of light is actually a single photon.
Single photons do not decrease in energy as they travel.
The wave IS the photon. What you are calling a wave is actually a lot of
photons.
A photon can be looked at as orthogonal electric and magnetic fields that
travel together in a tightly bound packet of energy.
END QUOTE.
Indeed, that is a very good picture of light.
Complemented by these great links:
http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html
http://www.teachspin.com/products/two_slit/experiments.html
(The photon is the wave himself.)
What could be wrong about this great picture?
What looks to be very wrong about this great picture is the explanation
of the deep field astronomical observations (taken by the Hubble space
telescope for instance).
Resolution is the problem.
I can see nice images emitted by a distant astronomical source, like
a galaxy, that is an omnidirectional source emitting all directions at
once, whose light is spherically expanding through space.
I can have a clear picture with very good resolution of any distant
galaxy in a mirror of about 2 meters diameter (the telescope mirror).
The image resolution only depends on the LCD resolution of the
telescope. It looks like a continuum and spectrum indeed is a
continuum.
The problem is that the area of the expanding spherical surface
increases at the cubic power of the radius (r^3) and THOSE
'light waves' fall off in intensity as the square of the distance (r^2)
from the source.
This means that if the proposed picture were to be a correct picture,
there must be a limit distance from which one cannot see anything,
no matter the telescope resolution, simply because there is no
photons available in such narrow window.
Or else, the photons concentration at the source must be so high
that it should be an emitting black hole.
The fact is that we do see very distant objects that otherwise
won't be seen.
So the picture is wrong and one must go back to the drawing board.
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> escreveu na mensagem
news:Xns9612471D73E90WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1110172705.112424.104090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > bz wrote:
> >> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1110137889.141845.222460
> >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > bz,
> >> >
> ...
> >> As far as I know, a photon does not know, or care if it is part of a
> >> stream of coherent light or being emitted by the hot filament of a
> >> light bulb. It travels outward in a straight line from the source.
> >>
> >>
> > If in that statement you mean a photon normally travels out from a
> > source in a straight line, that is inconsistent with the well-accepted
> > explanation that light normally propagates as spherically shaped waves
> > from its source.
>
> That view of light is inconsistent with observations. The 'spherically
> shaped waves' were thought to exist by people that were working with huge
> numbers of photons emitted by omnidirectional, multichromatic sources.
>
> When one has access to detectors that allow the observation of single
> photon events, the flaws in that view become obvious, even when observing
> such sources.
>
> >>
> >> I doubt that a 450 nm photon from my laser pointer is ANY different
> >> from a 450 nm photon from the light bulb above my right shoulder.
> >>
> >>
> > The size may be the same, but I assume the energy level is much higher
> > when ordinary light is made into coherent light.
>
> A photon is a photon. The energy is ONLY dependent on the wavelength.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you look at
> >> the link I posted, and read through the experiment, you see that single
> >> photon, double slit experiments can be done with incoherent light,
> >> also, using a good filter.
> >>
> >>
> > Apparently, that is so, as the green filter allows only certain photons
> > through one at a time.
>
> The green filter only allows certain photons through. The opacity is
> adjusted to allow only one at at time through. That is independent of the
> fact that the filter passes a single color[actually a band of colors].
>
> >>
> >>
> >> I asked "what makes you think that all 'light waves' are spherically
> >> expanding?" As a matter of fact, what makes you think that ANY 'light
> >> waves' are spherically expanding?
> >>
> >>
> > I gave you my response to that but you blew it off we know enough about
> > light to contradict Huygens. I disagree with that, since you give no
> > references to show support for that, nor any personal idea you may hold
> > which contradicts Huygens. Just saying Huygens was wrong is not enough
> > because talk is cheap while support requires effort.
>
> http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html
>
> I gave you the URL of an experiment that any college physics student can
> run. Did you read it carefully?
>
> http://www.teachspin.com/products/two_slit/experiments.html
> The results are inconsistent with an expanding 'wave' view of light.
>
> Here is a question: if light is a wave that expands like a wave upon the
> water, how can one create a beam of light? I can create a plane water wave
> inside a wave guide of some kind on the water, but once the wave is
> launched 'into space', it will expand. Try it with waves on water. There
is
> no way to _keep_ them formed into a beam.
>
> Experience (flashlights, Lasers) show that the 'wave upon water' analogy
> does not work very well for light. Light must be considered to consist of
> photons. Photons have a dual nature. On a very small scale, they can act
> like waves, at times, but they act like those waves are closely associated
> with very small bundles of energy. They do NOT spread like waves upon
> water.
>
> Single photon experiments confirm this.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> I also explained the 'missing photons' you were wondering about. The
> >> intensity falls as the inverse of the square of the distance. There
> > are
> >> Fewer photons per square inch, the further away you go from the
> >> omnidirectional source.
> >>
> >> >
> > That sounds reasonable enough for me to ask you for a reference quote.
>
> Here is another.
> [http://www.iscienceproject.com/labs/finished_labs/6355
> _lidecaysdistance.html]
>
> > You are saying that the number of photons in an ordinary light wave
>
> Two mistakes. 'An ordinary light wave' assumes a singular event. 'A wave'.
> Also you imply there is more than one kind of light, 'ordinary' and
> something else.
>
> "A" wave of light is actually a single photon.
>
> > falls off as the inverse of the the square of the distance the light
> > wave travels from the source.
>
> Single photons do not decrease in energy as they travel.
>
> The event that you are looking at as 'a light wave' is actually the
> launching of a huge number of photons, being 'broadcast' from a single
> point source. Picture a huge crowd of people at some location. They are
> alarmed by a fire at the center. They all flee outward from the fire. This
> is your 'wave'. Now these people are constrained to move at a constant
> speed and in a straight line. They were on an infinite plane when they
> started to flee.
>
> Now image this in 3 space with ... oh... a hive of quantum bees. You have
> a very good analogy for your wave of light. But, each bee is a photon of
> light and there is no 'wave' per se.
>
> A laser just begins by constraining the bees to flee in only one
> direction. You still have bees and they still travel in straight lines and
> at the same speed.
>
> You can even envision a mixture of different sized bees from a polychromic
> source, while the laser only launches bees of a single size.
>
>
> > If so, at what point do they all "fall
> > off" and what happens to the wave once it lacks any photons.
>
> The question is meaningless. Follow any single photon. Its 'brothers' get
> separated from it by greater and greater distances as they move away from
> the source, but none of them 'fall off'. The intensity falls off. The
> intensity is measured in photons per square unit.
>
>
> > It may be
> > possible for a wave to maintain its original energy with only one
> > photon left, but I would think that the light wave cannot be visible
> > without a single photon left to it.
>
> The wave IS the photon. What you are calling a wave is actually a lot of
> photons.
>
> >
> > Now, I know that the strength of the em field of a point charge
>
> That is the E field of a point charge. Point charges do NOT have M fields
> unless they are in motion.
>
> A photon can be looked at as orthogonal electric and magnetic fields that
> travel together in a tightly bound packet of energy.
>
>
> > decreases in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the
> > charge, and that and that the strength of the gravitational field of a
> > point mass decreases in inverse proportion to the square of the
> > distance from the object, but if what you say is true, light cannot
> > travel forever,
>
> Why not? Or on the other hand, even if what I said were false, what makes
> you think light could travel forever?
>
> > or certainly not for the many years which have passed
> > since the BB occurred and produced the cbr seen today.
> >
>
> You appear to be conflating several erronious ideas.
>
> Again, what makes you think light travels in spherical waves? Cite a
modern
> source.
>
>
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
- Next message: John T Lowry: "Re: Free Will?"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Free Will?"
- In reply to: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Next in thread: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Reply: bz: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
