Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Emc2 on 10/09/2012 09:51:33
-
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c.
a photon is basically pure energy, that it why it can go from particle to wave and visa versa..
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
-
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c.
Ok.
a photon is basically pure energy, that it why it can go from particle to wave and visa versa..
1. What is "pure energy" and which is the difference with "energy"?
2. Just to be more precise, a photon doesn't "go from particle to wave and vice versa", a photon is a particle; as an electron, a proton, a neutron, ecc.
But "particle" for a physicist doesn't mean "corpuscle". It actually means (simplistically speaking) "a quantum object which state is found solving the Schroedinger equation" and which has both wave and corpuscolar behaviour depending on the situation.
-
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c.
Ok.
a photon is basically pure energy, that it why it can go from particle to wave and visa versa..
1. What is "pure energy" and which is the difference with "energy"?
2. Just to be more precise, a photon doesn't "go from particle to wave and vice versa", a photon is a particle; as an electron, a proton, a neutron, ecc.
But "particle" for a physicist doesn't mean "corpuscle". It actually means (simplistically speaking) "a quantum object which state is found solving the Schroedinger equation" and which has both wave and corpuscolar behaviour depending on the situation.
A Photon is 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. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
-
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
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
-
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.
-
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 )
-
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".
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
If I don't understand, it's not a serious problem, maybe it's me...
Write a document for ArXiv, so that other physicsts can read it.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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..
Emc2: Lightarrow and Imatfaal are both correct and trying to point out some subtleties of the photon. Please remember this is a discussion forum. Simply telling others they're wrong and you're right without trying to engage in discussion isn't helpful.
-
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
-
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..
If electron has energy then does the electron have any photon?
-
first of all, I am right
read these links.
You'll notice that in those links there's always the important distinction that it is a packet of energy of the electromangetic field. If you just define a photon as a packet of energy you miss a lot of its important properties that come from the electromangetic field. As I understood their posts, that's what lightarrow and imatfaal were trying to point out.
-
You'll notice that in those links there's always the important distinction that it is a packet of energy of the electromangetic field. If you just define a photon as a packet of energy you miss a lot of its important properties that come from the electromangetic field. As I understood their posts, that's what lightarrow and imatfaal were trying to point out.
Yes. Furthermore, that is not the best definition of photon. A better definition is "quantum of electromagnetic field". As such, it has several properties, one of which is energy.
-
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........
-
A Photon is a mass less piece of energy
Wrong. It is a definition used in popular books/documents but it's not the real thing.
Look up in a good book of quantum mechanics or, better, about QFT, quantum field theory (or, at least, which includes QED, quantum electro dynamics).
--
lightarrow
-
Does this help Emc2?
Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler
Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
-------
The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage. Since photons have no mass, they have no mass-energy, and that means their energy is “purely motion-energy”. But that does not mean the same thing, either in physics or intuitively to the non-expert, as saying photons are “pure energy”.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/ (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/)
-
Nice find lean bean - I spent some time looking for a nice definitive article like that.
-
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 ?
-
if you say so...
-
So a photon is a packet of mass-less vibrating electromagnetic energy. So what is a virtual photon? To define that you will need to get your head around what magnoflux is.
CliveS
-
Interesting arguments :)
'Energy' seems to me to be observer dependent. A photon is? I'm not sure, observer dependent too possibly? As we don't necessarily need to agree on position/time for a annihilation? Treated as a excitation in a field, the field then must be observer dependent too. A field is a neat way out of the particle/wave duality, especially if we treat what we see as observer dependent, meaning defined through its relations (as I see it at least:)
As for it having energy I totally agree, Einstein called it a 'energy quanta', if I remember right, but it has some other properties too, as its polarization/spin, And if I would define something directly measurable as, as close to the concept of 'energy' as possible, then it would be a photon. But the energy in a photon, accepting red and blue shifts, is in direct relation to the detector. Meaning that the 'energy' measured, (and that is science, what is measurable) is a relation.
And treating it as a relation fits the 'field concept' very well, as I feel for now at least. If I would assume a 'static field' of some magnitude creating the 'ground' for interactions in it, we then would need some parameters more allowing us the observer dependence, and those seem to be the arrow (time) 'relative motion', accelerations, and 'c' the light constant. Or you can assume a fluctuating field too, but I expect us to get that introducing a arrow and observers (relations). Then we have the other degrees of freedom as length, width and height, but they and the arrow becomes one in relativity as I read it. That you can lift out parts of that 'wholeness' to then manipulate your symbols doesn't state that the universe treats it that way. As I think they 'fused together' becomes a archetype of sorts, the building blocks of relativity. And that's also a question of what scaling tells us, because with scaling the building blocks becomes diffuse, and we wander from relativity into QM.
-
Yor_on, it is not complicated at all. There are virtual photon of electro-magnetic energy which electrical engineers identify as imaginary or reactive power measured in var's rather than Watts.
AC Electricity can move at the speed of light and therefore is made of photons not electrons. Now if the current loop which is a volume of magnoflux is not at right angles to the voltage field then you will get virtual photons instead of real energy photons.
Once you get to understand this then nuclear resonance and MRI machines and their images are simple to understand.
CliveS