Consider the lowly photon ...

(new comments at my reply to Shando, above)

Jim,

The concept of the photon does contribute to the general level of confusion in scientific discourse. Part of this comes from the concept itself, and part of it comes from a misunderstanding of the concept, or parts of the concept, by specific individuals. Pretty much everyone is at fault, so no finger pointing is intended here. I just mean that each of us will have a slightly different amount of (mis)understanding of any given concept.

Every model (theory) has both a math aspect and a physics aspect. To the extent that we recognize, consciously, which parts of the model are physical and which are conceptual we move the level of confusion downward. Conversely, the level of confusion rises as we neglect expending the effort to consciously, EXPLICITLY, make this distinction.

But we do (all of you ... er us - dangit) neglect this chore, frequently. Because <u>it is a chore</u>. It takes real work (mental and physical) to do this. To think the extra words needed to remind ourselves of this dichotomy. To speak or write these extra words to remind others.

(The majority of the work involved here is, of course, that needed to learn enough about the topic to be able to correctly MAKE the distinction in the first place.)

And having thought or spoken or written these extra words ... we must then expend more effort thinking/speaking/writing about what they mean.

Science is fun. Good science is also work.

sigh

LB

<b>[Jim]"I don't see how you progress with any good model until at least these two details are cleared up."</b>

In the case of the photon, this clearing-up of details probably begins with a personal decision: "Do I think EM energy moves around the universe as a particle, or as a wave?"

Picking one or the other does not make you right. Or wrong.[1] It just helps you think about EM energy. And when you talk to others about it, it <u>helps them</u> understand you.

*** IF you take the time to mention it. ***

Have you decided? (Based on your writings here, I'd guess that you think in terms of a particle. But I'm not sure, so I usually have some doubt in my mind about what you mean.)

===

Hmmm. Is there anyone in the audience that is not <u>sure</u> about my thinking on this topic?

[1]
Well, actually I guess it does. But at this time we do not know with certainty which is which.

(new comments at my reply to Shando, above)

LB, I have a dim opinion of both views about energy. I do think all photons have the exact same energy equal to the electronic charge. It is photon force that needs to be explored-not it's energy. It is not all that different, but, thinking of force allows more freedom for thinking itself. Why bind yourself to to age old wave/particle dogma? What is gained in any of the "is too/is not" games people play?

<b>[Jim] "... thinking of force [rather than energy] allows more freedom for thinking itself."</b>

Climbing out of the box is good. But then you climb into another box, and imagine you have freed yourself? I'm not sure I understand.

===

Force. Energy. Power. Torque. Acceleration. They are all boxes. Boxes "box us in". But they also shield us from extraneous distractions.

Most questions can be explored with more than one tool. Rather than limit yourself to one or the other, learn to look at the world (actually, at the specific part of the world you are exploring at any given time) from several perspecives. If you get the same answer from several tools, there is at least the suggestion that you are looking in the right direcion. If each tool gives you a different aswer, it is almost certain you are not.

===

No guarantees, of course. Our ability to fool ourselves is quite discouraging.