1

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 19/09/2012 11:04:07 »

A Photon is an energy wave as it travels at C, and a Particle "ONLY" as certain interactions dictate.

It travels at C as a wave of energy ( hence “pure energy ), then as it needs to interact it either changes to a particle ( to interact for example in Human Vision ) to interact, or remains a wave to interact in that form…

  so for 99.9 % of it's existence it is a wave of energy


  Get it now  ?

2

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 16/09/2012 22:41:20 »

 A Photon is a mass less piece of energy, that can act as a wave and/or a particle.

 Of course a Photon has energy,  DOH !!!!  that is because IT IS ENERGY !!

   You can not get more clear then that.

 If you can not understand that simple concept, you can never understand the complexity of simplicity..  ( get it now ? )

 Oh well........

3

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 16/09/2012 12:24:31 »

first of all, I am right
read these  links.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

( In the case of electromagnetic wave these energy states are called quanta of light or photons. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_operator
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization

( Einsteins's conclusion from early experiments on the photoelectric effect is that electromagnetic radiation is composed of irreducible packets of energy, known as photons. )

  (( packets of energy, known as photons  ))  being a key phrase.

( The connection with quantum mechanics is made through the identification of a minimum packet size, called a photon, for energy in the electromagnetic field.  )

  and read this one too.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_experiment

( The important conclusion from these early experiments is that electromagnetic radiation is composed of irreducible packets of energy, known as photons )

  and this one..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

 ( The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR )

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light




   It is simple as anything, a photon of light is energy, that is why it has no mass, but momentum

 

4

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 16/09/2012 01:42:58 »

EMC2 - Lightarrow is completely correct. 

One might consider the photon as pure energy, but this is not the best way to think. Energy is a property of waves and particles. Classically you can view waves in the electromagnetic field as being carriers of energy. Energy is a property of the configuration.  A more classical simile would be that sea waves quite clearly transporting energy - but they do not move a lot of water.  You might still claim that waves are energy. But rather say it is more correct that energy is a property of the configuration and that waves transport energy.

  No, I am sorry he is not correct, you both are not correct.

   
     Light is Energy..  and there nothing left to say about it..
   

5

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 15/09/2012 11:57:11 »

It is very complicated to understand, I realize that

Yes, you are referring to yourself, clearly  []

.....but it is what it is, a mass less

Yes.

piece of energy.....

This is just your personal interpretation, if you want to discuss it, please do it in "New theories" forum.

First of all, everything is "pure energy"

"pure energy" doesn't exist. Please, ask a physics professor about what is "pure energy" and tell me how long you will have made him laugh...

thanks to Einstein's famous E=mc^2. Second of all: many elementary particles can decay; in fact, MOST of them! The only ones that don't are the electron, photon, up quark and (possibly) neutrino. The real reason that the photon cannot decay is because it is massless.

And why a non-massless particle as electron doesn't decay?

A counter-example is the Z boson, which is (VERY roughly speaking!!) a "fat photon", which can decay (and does so **VERY** fast - about 10^{-24} seconds!). However, it is just as "elementary" as the photon.

This is just your personal interpretation, if you want to discuss it, please do it in "New theories" forum.

Massless particles can never decay.

I have never said the contrary (apart from the fact that I don't know what you mean with "decay": a photon can generate a couple e⁺ e^-, for example)

You can prove this mathematically by just writing down the energies and momenta of the decay products and showing that there are no values of these things that conserve everything. More intuitively: massless particles move at the speed of light.

Ok. And then? It doesn't mean that a photon IS energy or that something as "pure energy" exists. Why did you forget to define the term "pure energy"?

Particles that move at the speed of light do not experience "time" due to Einstein's special theory of relativity (infinite time dilation - they stop aging).

Meaningless sentence. You cannot create a frame of reference co-moving with the photon.

  I realize that you do not understand, that's cool, it is complicated, yet so very simple...

  I'm done in this useless conversation anymore....

6

New Theories / Re: Time

« on: 15/09/2012 05:41:54 »

all mass has energy ( E=MC2 ), a Photon IS energy but has no mass, but does have momentum, hence E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

  Time ( movement/progression ) slows down ( caused by the drag on matter as speed increases ) as speed increases and energy also increases.

  SO  -   speed +  = energy + = time -     

  A photon is the only object in the universe so far found, that is NOT relative to the observer, but is relative to everything..

  any 2 observers ( one moving & one stationary ) that agree on the speed of light, have to disagree on time and distance..

7

New Theories / Re: Is the past annihilating?

« on: 15/09/2012 05:33:48 »

First I would respond: What is your definition of mass?

  mass : http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#mass
( A measure of the total amount of material in a body, defined either by the inertial properties of the body or by its gravitational influence on other bodies. )

Secondly: Wave theory is a …theory.

  NO it is not..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

  ( This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules  )

 

I may or may not have a “mass” as well I may or may not be a product of a “wave phenomenon. “

  You HAVE mass, there is no may or may not.....


  I ain't even reading the rest, too long....but Mass exists, and you have it, Photons DO NOT ... Period..

I will not engage you in a discussion of what mass is. We all have done our research and form our own conclusions about this quirky…concept. Suffice to say there are a variety of definitions of what mass is.. In my personal opining after considering THIS dilemma (not any less ambiguous than the understanding of the Higgs Field) and after sifting out all the lingo and interpretation’s. I do not ascribe to “mass theory.” I do not feel that there is any such thing as real mass or weight as opposed to those things considered as not having mass.

You refer to the sub-Atomic level as having “miniscule mass”…I would say that you came to this conclusion because you or someone else simply “measured something.” and derived from that o measurement what you call “mass”. in reality all you discovered was a “force of resistance” relative to acceleration. You did not discover a “mass of resistance” nor a “mass of acceleration” but a “force of resistance”. Their in lies the contradiction. At what point in that experiment did you equate mass with energy or force?  Rather. Mass IS energy that apparently is being acted upon by weaker or stronger .other energy. A mass is not a force rather may be acted upon by a force.  A force is not a mass rather may be perceived as either greater or lesser in strength. Thus your experiment would more describe “mass” as a force or an acceleration of force verses any having of weight or acquiring more weight. Weight is not an appropriate concept relative to an understanding of a “measurement” of “a body.” Whether at rest or acted upon resulting in perceived acceleration. When we say it is getting more or less mass (weight) we are really saying it is getting more or less energy or force or acceleration. The concept of weight or mass as defined nowadays is superfluous. So-called mass is a… magnitude …measured relative to the energy side. If this were true then the real and greater mass would be found on the greater resistance or greater acceleration side verses a mass that is obviously less capable of resisting or acceleration if the force isn’t there.  Thus it is the force of resistance or acceleration that describes the side where the energy dwells and as subsequently acting upon the other lesser energy form (mass). This seems to be describing E=mc2. However I think we could rewrite this equation to read EI2=EF-R(EF)=EIC..where the squaring of light speed (reflection of light) occurs before the right side comes into existence. And that: The right side existing is contingent upon the squaring of light. Where the left side exists independently and at the constant speed of light. And where the right side begins to exist when the left side decides to square itself (reflect itself..in part) at that particular point.

 (Where I=Infinite; and where F=finite of infinite; and where R=reflect; and where E=energy; and where C= constant speed of light; and where 2 = the Higgs field illusion of the squaring of the speed of light)

 Light speed squared.  Represents the HIGGS FIELD.

What do I mean when I describe the Higgs field as producing the relativity between the infinite energy and the finite energy? First I am saying that neither side has or acquires any real weight. But both sides have volume of force (resistance) as opposed to the force of the other side. As well both sides can be relatively observed as either accelerating this force or not.  Such “measuring” ideology or conclusions I think are erroneous. Rather each side is a force that can either be perceived as yielding to (consistent with) or perceived as resisting (contrary to the direction) the perceived acceleration of the other side. I am speaking of energy (on both sides) as being entropic! Where “acceleration” =progressing one direction verses another direction as opposed to the direction of another.
Here I am saying that though both sides may be traveling at the same speed they can choose which direction to go at that speed. They can choose to go toward each other or away from each other in any and all possible directions. If they are traveling the same direction and same speed then a relative observer would perceive no relative accelerations or decelerations. If they are moving away from each other then acceleration will appear to be more or less. The exact direction (angle or degree) of one as opposed to the exact direction of the other will determine how a relative observer will perceive the speed of one relative to the other.

The Higgs Field allows this entropic energy exchange. Thus the Higgs Field is neither a particle nor a wave; it is neither EI nor EF. The Higgs field is that medium that creates the relativity of both sides to each other. The Higgs field could be stated as being the reflective scenario..allowing all energies to reflect each other. Remove the Higgs field and no relativity reflecting exists. No relativity exists between the Infinite energy (reflector) side and the finite (of infinite) energy side. (Reflectee)

I would condense this postulate and simply say that the Higgs field is the very reflective plane or aether that exists in the universe that results in the relativity of energy to what we call mass. The EI side reflects to this field and thus its energy source is represented upon the plane and produces copies of its energy and quality to the screen. This would represent a qualifying of the “Holographic scenario“ proposed by Verlinde. Here I am referring to holography as expressing the relationship between real energy and reflected energy. Or ..for for the sake of not totally invalidating your desire to cling to “mass thinking”: The relationship between the bulk mass of all that is and the plane mass that is derived from the bulk mass.

As in my former post illustrations ( as well responses to other threads) I will continue to broaden the ball mirror(s) analogy to now show where the Higgs field fits in. The ball = EI. The mirror(s)=Higgs Field. The objects in mirror=EF.

And where: Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.

Or: E2=HG(mc)xmc=E2..divided by HG=EC
Where E= Energy source of all “other” energies.
Where the =(equal sign) expresses the relativity of E to mc.
Where HG= causes the relativity of the left side to the right side. (Reflection)
Where 2= the reflection of E to a reflective plane ( the Higgs field)
Where mc= the speed of the reflected image ( 186,000) (a form of light that travels the same as and the same speed as the speed of light.)
Where E2= EC x EC(C2 via higgs field) =m(constant speed of light….. reflected)x EC(Constant speed of light=E@

Does a mass have mass BEFORE it is influenced by the Higggs Field? What is it about the higgs field that causes the mass to acquire its mass? What is the mass before it acquires its mass?  Mass is energy. Energy is mass. Thus mass” is energy before it intersects with the Higgs field. Energy is mass when it intersects with the Higgs field. Thus the Higgs field is that which converts one form of energy to another form of energy. The Higgs field is that which converts one form of mass (gigantic: comprising all that is) to other forms of mass (miniscule in comparison the whole of which it is part.)

In this scenario both sides are energy. Both sides are mass. It is the Higgs field that allows the invisible mass/ energy of the left side to be represented on the right side as visible geometric representations.

If we want to know the quality and infiniteness of the left side all we have to do is observe the invisible side  by seeing what it looks like when it is made visible ( due to the Higgs field) . We can do this by looking around us everywhere and realizing the infinite reflections of the left side. By so doing we can come to understand the infinite beauty, elegance, intelligence, shape, quality, purpose and entropic choices that describe the left side. We may ..in such observations see evidence of how visible the left side really is.

8

New Theories / Re: G.O.D. designer IS compatible with Science. Fresh perspective.

« on: 15/09/2012 05:29:53 »

you insist that there is an "intelligent designer".

  Let me make it easy for you, the "design" is intelligent through complexity, there is no "designer".

9

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 15/09/2012 05:27:02 »

  A Photon IS Energy, notice - definition from Goddard Space Center..
  ( photon
The smallest (quantum) unit of light/electromagnetic energy. Photons are generally regarded as particles with zero mass and no electric charge. )

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#photon

A photon is not energy, a photon has energy, and wherever you found that idea, sorry, it's wrong...
In the link you gave there isn't written that "photon is energy", at all. Read it well.
Energy is an attribute of objects/systems, it's not an object/system by itself.
Otherwise you should explain (for example) how can a car have kinetic energy and not being a photon, or anything having energy and not having photons to which attribute that energy.

  first of all you did not read correctly....

  (( photon, The smallest (quantum) unit of light/electromagnetic energy  ) <---this is my quote...

Ok, and then? It's taught in every simple course of qm. Does it mean that a photon is energy? LOL

  Your are not correct.  Think Again...

I don't need it. If you like, ask a professor of physics...

  A Photon is Energy ( Radiation ),

"Is radiation and "is energy" are two different things. Radiation is something and energy is something else.
A photon is a particle. Period. Then you can find that it has some properties, for example energy and spin.

and thereby "has" energy, and it has no mass..  you can accept the facts, or believe what you want to....

Exactly, but this is what I wrote, you wrote that "a photon is energy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
 ( A photon is an elementary particle,

Indeed  []

the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
 ( In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. )
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
  ( the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR )

In all those quote, and in the links, there is never written that "a photon IS energy".

  It is very complicated to understand, I realize that.....but it is what it is, a mass less piece of energy.....

First of all, everything is "pure energy" thanks to Einstein's famous E=mc^2. Second of all: many elementary particles can decay; in fact, MOST of them! The only ones that don't are the electron, photon, up quark and (possibly) neutrino. The real reason that the photon cannot decay is because it is massless. A counter-example is the Z boson, which is (VERY roughly speaking!!) a "fat photon", which can decay (and does so **VERY** fast - about 10^{-24} seconds!). However, it is just as "elementary" as the photon.

Massless particles can never decay. You can prove this mathematically by just writing down the energies and momenta of the decay products and showing that there are no values of these things that conserve everything. More intuitively: massless particles move at the speed of light. Particles that move at the speed of light do not experience "time" due to Einstein's special theory of relativity (infinite time dilation - they stop aging). Therefore they cannot decay since that would require a clock (the particle has to know how long it has to go before it decays).

BTW, this argument is how they relate neutrino oscillation to neutrino mass: if the neutrinos were truly massless, then they could not oscillate by this argument. Thus, even though we still cannot directly measure the neutrino mass since it's so small, we can still infer that it's not zero since we see the oscillations.

http://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_energy2/cub_energy2_lesson03.xml
((  Light is a form of energy  ))

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-how-can-photons-have-energy-and-momentum-but-no-mass/

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: black holes

« on: 14/09/2012 06:05:55 »

very cool - well actually very hot...

  LOL,  yup

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time really exist?

« on: 14/09/2012 06:04:51 »

Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..

In Stu's case  two factors of slowing of time are.Do you think that gravitationally slowed time is relative?

  Again I ask, show me a link that corroborates this...

12

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 14/09/2012 06:00:05 »

  A Photon IS Energy, notice - definition from Goddard Space Center..
  ( photon
The smallest (quantum) unit of light/electromagnetic energy. Photons are generally regarded as particles with zero mass and no electric charge. )

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#photon

A photon is not energy, a photon has energy, and wherever you found that idea, sorry, it's wrong...
In the link you gave there isn't written that "photon is energy", at all. Read it well.
Energy is an attribute of objects/systems, it's not an object/system by itself.
Otherwise you should explain (for example) how can a car have kinetic energy and not being a photon, or anything having energy and not having photons to which attribute that energy.

  first of all you did not read correctly....

  (( photon, The smallest (quantum) unit of light/electromagnetic energy  ) <---this is my quote...

  Your are not correct.  Think Again...

  A Photon is Energy ( Radiation ), and thereby "has" energy, and it has no mass..  you can accept the facts, or believe what you want to....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 ( A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

 ( In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. )

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

  ( the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR )

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How can we probe what's happening inside black holes?

« on: 12/09/2012 06:30:16 »

Some cool finding on Black Holes

  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/news.html

( Astronomers using data from the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton satellite have found a long-sought X-ray signal from NGC 4151, a galaxy that contains a supermassive black hole. When the black hole's X-ray source flares, its accretion disk brightens about half an hour later. The discovery promises a new way to unravel what's happening in the neighborhood of these powerful objects. )

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time really exist?

« on: 12/09/2012 06:20:20 »

Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..

15

New Theories / Re: Divine connection

« on: 12/09/2012 06:16:02 »

No, I do not change my statement..

16

New Theories / Re: G.O.D. designer IS compatible with Science. Fresh perspective.

« on: 12/09/2012 06:11:48 »

didn't read...too long again.....................

17

New Theories / Re: Is the past annihilating?

« on: 12/09/2012 06:11:01 »

YOU are not a particle, you are a collection of particles and waves combined through complexity and YOU have mass.

  Sub-Atomic particles have miniscule mass, that's a dilema ( see higgs field )

 You do not behave like a particle, because you are not a particle...but a collection of Trillions of particles and waves

18

New Theories / Re: The Photon as Pure Energy

« on: 12/09/2012 06:07:34 »

A Photon is energy

A photon "has" energy.

- and it has been proven that it can act as a wave or a particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
 Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles.

"it can act as a wave or a particle" or "exhibit wave–particle duality" is a better description than the one you wrote in your previous post []

   A Photon IS Energy, notice - definition from Goddard Space Center..

  ( photon
The smallest (quantum) unit of light/electromagnetic energy. Photons are generally regarded as particles with zero mass and no electric charge. )

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#photon

19

New Theories / Re: Relativity Outside of the Box

« on: 11/09/2012 09:24:29 »

Very good video, I actually liked the presentation.

  And yes, as our solar system orbits inside of our galaxy as it spins around, our planet and our solar system are going to experience areas of density, different levels of gravity, different levels of inertia, and maybe even through different levels of dark matter, and dark energy. 

 Just as our orbit around our sun causes changes, you can be sure that our solar system revolving around our galaxy also causes changes.

  Your ideas are as plausible as any others I have heard.

  And the way I always seen it, is that "everything" is relative to the observer, at all speeds, and levels of gravity, and the forces, etc.

  "everything" is energy anyways, after you break it all down.......

20

New Theories / Re: Time

« on: 11/09/2012 07:39:14 »

Yes Time is  reflective in the relative Energy.

  As mass and speed increases so does Energy, the opposite happens in Time ( it decreases or slows )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

  Of course Gravity and space/time play parts in these equations out in space.