- Thank you received: 0
Consider the lowly photon ...
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
12 years 9 months ago #24415
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<b>[pshroder] "... I never understood ..."</b>
Well, this gets us to that confusion factor I mentioned. Science in general, and physics in particular, ought to be simple to explain and easy to understand, at least on some level. At one time it was. But now it is not.
This <u>does not mean</u> that it (science) used to be right and now it is wrong.
The universe might actually be as subjective as some experts now say it is.
<ul>
<li>You see time for your traveling sister moving more slowly than time for you. Then she returns. And shazam! She is young.</li>
<li>Your traveling sister also sees time for you moving more slowly than time for her. (All inertial frames are equivalent.) Then she returns. And shazam! You <u>aren't</u> young.</li>
<li>You put a cat in a box and wait for a while. Did the timer go ding yet? Is the cat dead, or alive? Until you lift the lid, it is both. Then you lift the lid. And shazam! It is one or the other.</li>
</ul>
Did I mention that parts of modern physics[1] can be confusing? (Especially if you parody it like I do here.)
But again, confusion / lack of simple explanations does not prove in and of itself that modern physics is incorrect. The universe is a big place (even if it is only a few dozen-billion light years across). Big enough for a lot of very odd things to happen. Things that we do not (yet) understand.
Do not mistake my open mindedness for credulity, however. I do in fact think a good bit of modern science is off the mark. The math parts of modern physical theories produce spectatular results. It is the physics (the physical interpretations, or explanations) of modern physics where all the confusion, and in my opinion error, resides.
But I'm not willing to make the same mistake they do, and say I KNOW it is wrong and I am right. I believe this, but I do not know it. The physical parts of reality are independent of my perception. And yours too, by the way.
The conceptual parts of reality, however, are not. I suspect our failure to recognize that reality has a conceptual component is part of the source of the confusion we have experienced of late.
LB
[1]
Technically relativity theory is part of Classical physics, not Modern physics. Executive summary: Classical physics treats the world as analog, Modern physics treats it as digital. But sometimes the word modern just means now as opposed to before. Capitalization can sometimes help you tell the difference.
Well, this gets us to that confusion factor I mentioned. Science in general, and physics in particular, ought to be simple to explain and easy to understand, at least on some level. At one time it was. But now it is not.
This <u>does not mean</u> that it (science) used to be right and now it is wrong.
The universe might actually be as subjective as some experts now say it is.
<ul>
<li>You see time for your traveling sister moving more slowly than time for you. Then she returns. And shazam! She is young.</li>
<li>Your traveling sister also sees time for you moving more slowly than time for her. (All inertial frames are equivalent.) Then she returns. And shazam! You <u>aren't</u> young.</li>
<li>You put a cat in a box and wait for a while. Did the timer go ding yet? Is the cat dead, or alive? Until you lift the lid, it is both. Then you lift the lid. And shazam! It is one or the other.</li>
</ul>
Did I mention that parts of modern physics[1] can be confusing? (Especially if you parody it like I do here.)
But again, confusion / lack of simple explanations does not prove in and of itself that modern physics is incorrect. The universe is a big place (even if it is only a few dozen-billion light years across). Big enough for a lot of very odd things to happen. Things that we do not (yet) understand.
Do not mistake my open mindedness for credulity, however. I do in fact think a good bit of modern science is off the mark. The math parts of modern physical theories produce spectatular results. It is the physics (the physical interpretations, or explanations) of modern physics where all the confusion, and in my opinion error, resides.
But I'm not willing to make the same mistake they do, and say I KNOW it is wrong and I am right. I believe this, but I do not know it. The physical parts of reality are independent of my perception. And yours too, by the way.
The conceptual parts of reality, however, are not. I suspect our failure to recognize that reality has a conceptual component is part of the source of the confusion we have experienced of late.
LB
[1]
Technically relativity theory is part of Classical physics, not Modern physics. Executive summary: Classical physics treats the world as analog, Modern physics treats it as digital. But sometimes the word modern just means now as opposed to before. Capitalization can sometimes help you tell the difference.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 9 months ago #21341
by shando
Replied by shando on topic Reply from Jim Shand
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<b>If one photon loses some frequency now and another photon near by does not lose some frequency for several microseconds (or maybe seconds, or hours?), would we not notice?
No two photons will have exactly the same history, so such random variations among individuals must happen.
</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br />What if ...
<br />The amplitude (aka: intensity) of the EM wave was a function of the photon density? Since photons have no mass (really?) and occupy no space (really?) there could be millions of billions of photons in the same location when leaving the source.
<br />Gradually, as the radiation spreads out in a sphere, the photons might peel off one by one, decreasing the intensity of the radiation.
<br />Those photons sharing a location would all experience the same interaction with the LCM. There would be no fuzziness in the red-shift signal.
<b>If one photon loses some frequency now and another photon near by does not lose some frequency for several microseconds (or maybe seconds, or hours?), would we not notice?
No two photons will have exactly the same history, so such random variations among individuals must happen.
</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br />What if ...
<br />The amplitude (aka: intensity) of the EM wave was a function of the photon density? Since photons have no mass (really?) and occupy no space (really?) there could be millions of billions of photons in the same location when leaving the source.
<br />Gradually, as the radiation spreads out in a sphere, the photons might peel off one by one, decreasing the intensity of the radiation.
<br />Those photons sharing a location would all experience the same interaction with the LCM. There would be no fuzziness in the red-shift signal.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
12 years 9 months ago #13765
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<b>[shando] "Those photons sharing a location would all experience the same interaction with the LCM."</b>
It does not sound very physical, but OK. Suppose.
The photons sharing another location nearby will, on average, experience a different interaction with the LCM. Nothing has really changed.
What is the difference between one photon each at positions P1 and P2, versus a thousand photons each at positions P1 and P2? P1 and P2 are still different positions, and getting to each results in different histories.
===
I'm puzzled by how much people struggle to avoid thinking of EM energy as waves propagating through a medium. The "space-time continum" is no less a medium than is the "aether" (old style or new style). It has properties that are not very aether-like, but it still fills all of space and influences things like light and orbits.
It does not sound very physical, but OK. Suppose.
The photons sharing another location nearby will, on average, experience a different interaction with the LCM. Nothing has really changed.
What is the difference between one photon each at positions P1 and P2, versus a thousand photons each at positions P1 and P2? P1 and P2 are still different positions, and getting to each results in different histories.
===
I'm puzzled by how much people struggle to avoid thinking of EM energy as waves propagating through a medium. The "space-time continum" is no less a medium than is the "aether" (old style or new style). It has properties that are not very aether-like, but it still fills all of space and influences things like light and orbits.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 9 months ago #24189
by shando
Replied by shando on topic Reply from Jim Shand
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<b>The photons sharing another location nearby will, on average, experience a different interaction with the LCM. Nothing has really changed.
What is the difference between one photon each at positions P1 and P2, versus a thousand photons each at positions P1 and P2? P1 and P2 are still different positions, and getting to each results in different histories.</b>
I suppose there is very little difference. However, I think that light-as-waves has the same problem - nearby wave-trains will experience slightly different histories and this should cause similar fuzziness in determining the red-shift in frequency.
<b>
thinking of EM energy as waves propagating through a medium.
</b>
In the immortal(?) words of Dr. Phil: "How's that working for ya?"
It seems to me that the deduction of LCM properties has to acknowledge both light-as-particles and light-as-waves. Working in one or the other doesn't matter too much as long as progress is being made and this acknowledgement is realized.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><b></b>
<b>The photons sharing another location nearby will, on average, experience a different interaction with the LCM. Nothing has really changed.
What is the difference between one photon each at positions P1 and P2, versus a thousand photons each at positions P1 and P2? P1 and P2 are still different positions, and getting to each results in different histories.</b>
I suppose there is very little difference. However, I think that light-as-waves has the same problem - nearby wave-trains will experience slightly different histories and this should cause similar fuzziness in determining the red-shift in frequency.
<b>
thinking of EM energy as waves propagating through a medium.
</b>
In the immortal(?) words of Dr. Phil: "How's that working for ya?"
It seems to me that the deduction of LCM properties has to acknowledge both light-as-particles and light-as-waves. Working in one or the other doesn't matter too much as long as progress is being made and this acknowledgement is realized.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><b></b>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
11 years 9 months ago #13912
by shando
Replied by shando on topic Reply from Jim Shand
I am sleepless in Hawaii - again - because it has been a year and Larry still has not addressed the following:
Evidence: LCM is entrained by large bodies such as planets. If the viscosity were zero there would be no entrainment.
Evidence: The energy of photons decreases in proportion to distance travelled. Although the velocity of the photon is maintained, the frequency of the photon is decreased as energy is shed due to the viscosity of the LCM. In other words, the red-shift is caused by distance travelled through the LCM, not because of universe expansion.
Evidence: Thus at some point (after travelling some billions of light years) the energy of the photon is exhausted, absorbed by the LCM. Otherwise, the sky would be aglow 24/7 due to the photons continuing to circulate throughout the universe, their paths deflected by gravity from large masses, forever.
Speculation: the zero-point-energy of "empty space" may be due to the accumulated energy from the exhausted photons.
Evidence: LCM is entrained by large bodies such as planets. If the viscosity were zero there would be no entrainment.
Evidence: The energy of photons decreases in proportion to distance travelled. Although the velocity of the photon is maintained, the frequency of the photon is decreased as energy is shed due to the viscosity of the LCM. In other words, the red-shift is caused by distance travelled through the LCM, not because of universe expansion.
Evidence: Thus at some point (after travelling some billions of light years) the energy of the photon is exhausted, absorbed by the LCM. Otherwise, the sky would be aglow 24/7 due to the photons continuing to circulate throughout the universe, their paths deflected by gravity from large masses, forever.
Speculation: the zero-point-energy of "empty space" may be due to the accumulated energy from the exhausted photons.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
11 years 9 months ago #13913
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Shando, What compels you to believe a photon looses energy? IMO, this never happens so I wonder if you can explain why you say they do loose energy?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.340 seconds