Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 10/07/2016 08:50:43
-
There is a lot of science that is based around the Photon, does the Photon exist?
-
Yes.
Until it is detected.
Then it ceases to exist.
-
There is a lot of science that is based around the Photon, does the Photon exist?
Consider the solar cell that produces electricity from the absorption of the photons energy. As evan_au has mentioned, the photon exists as a wave/particle until the solar cell absorbs it's energy. When this transformation occurs, the photon ceases to exit and electricity, "the flow of electrons" is produced. How else would science explain, or for that matter, any reasonable individual, the proven function of solar electricity?
The photon is the electromagnetic force carrier and we can produce energy from it because of that fact. YES, the photon exists!
-
There is a lot of science that is based around the Photon, does the Photon exist?
Consider the solar cell that produces electricity from the absorption of the photons energy. As evan_au has mentioned, the photon exists as a wave/particle until the solar cell absorbs it's energy. When this transformation occurs, the photon ceases to exit and electricity, "the flow of electrons" is produced. How else would science explain, or for that matter, any reasonable individual, the proven function of solar electricity?
The photon is the electromagnetic force carrier and we can produce energy from it because of that fact. YES, the photon exists!
Well I personally think Newtonian mechanics of light were correct in the form of a wave, solar energy created by the wave of light and the ''capture'' of light. The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
I personally have found no proof of a Photon's existence, can you please point me to something concrete in the form of proof?
-
Yes.
Until it is detected.
Then it ceases to exist.
Ceases to exist or is converted? a ''convertual'' polymorphic substance?
-
Well I personally think Newtonian mechanics of light were correct in the form of a wave, solar energy created by the wave of light and the ''capture'' of light. The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
Photons have the same property that all other particles have, i.e. they have what's called a wave-particle duality. Sometimes light behaves as if it's composed of particles and sometimes it behaves like a wave.
I personally have found no proof of a Photon's existence, can you please point me to something concrete in the form of proof?
Once again you create a thread asking a question so that you can claim that the converse is true. Why do you keep doing this?
And you're also making the mistake of thinking that the concept of proof belongs in science, which it doesn't. Physics works by finding evidence where evidence is information or observations which are consistent with a theory or hypothesis. The more evidence of varying types the more convincing the hypothesis is. And there is plenty of evidence that photons exist. The photo electric effect and Compton scattering are two of the most convincing experiments for the existence of photons.
-
Once again you create a thread asking a question so that you can claim that the converse is true. Why do you keep doing this?
Because he wants to discuss new theories in the main section. This is against forum policy, is troll like behaviour, and could lead to him being barred from this section.
Ceases to exist or is converted?
Ok, I'll take this at face value.
Yes, ceases to exist. The energy is converted, but the light/photon no longer exists.
a 'conventual'' polymorphic substance?
No, open up a new theories thread to discuss this.
-
a 'conventual'' polymorphic substance?
No, open up a new theories thread to discuss this.
I agree Colin2B, and with PmbPhy as well. If Mr. Box continues with this devious and dishonest behavior, more effective measures, above and beyond friendly suggestions should be taken. A word to the wise should be sufficient...........................
-
I can't believe my ears, in my post in this thread is not mentioned any new theories. However the lynch mob I pre-warned this forum about as obviously arrived.
Not once do I mention a new theory.
I am asking a simple question, do Photons exist?
I can not see that they exist, so I ask you for proof they exist, then you reply there is evidence , evidence is proof where I am from if the evidence is solid and reliable.
I mention the Photon being converted, you tell me it just vanishes, then the Photo electrical effect is mentioned, a conversion of the light into something else, you are confusing me big time.
So now you are telling me in short that a Photon is not converted into heat and then electricity by a solar panel. Scratch my head you are all very contradicting.
-
you are confusing me big time.
Wrong Mr. Box, your confusion is self induced.
-
Once again you create a thread asking a question so that you can claim that the converse is true. Why do you keep doing this?
Because he wants to discuss new theories in the main section. This is against forum policy, is troll like behaviour, and could lead to him being barred from this section.
Ceases to exist or is converted?
Ok, I'll take this at face value.
Yes, ceases to exist. The energy is converted, but the light/photon no longer exists.
a 'conventual'' polymorphic substance?
No, open up a new theories thread to discuss this.
A Photon is not a new theory and neither is discussing it, I mispelled convertual and polymorphic is the wrong word to use, I swear the defintions keep changing.
-
you are confusing me big time.
Wrong Mr. Box, your confusion is self induced.
Dude you just keep focusing on me trying to push buttons, obvious troll .
No you are confusing me, people are confusing me, ambiguity is a problem. You say one thing then change your minds, it is confusing.
-
Let's try again with a simple question,
are photons converted into heat or other?
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
Yes me too, they told me this before, that is why I am referring to a Photon that is ''convertual''.
Thanks IAM for being a normal person.
added - I was thinking convirtual to represent things that can be converted but can not be seen like energy converts to work, we can see the work but we cant see the energy doing the work, the energy is practically ''virtual '' but I think virtual may be an error because virtual means doesnt exist, but regards to normal vision and just looking, we do not see the invisible things.
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
Yes me too, they told me this before, that is why I am referring to a Photon that is ''convertual''.
Thanks IAM for being a normal person.
added - I was thinking convirtual to represent things that can be converted but can not be seen like energy converts to work, we can see the work but we cant see the energy doing the work, the energy is practically ''virtual '' but I think virtual may be an error because virtual means doesnt exist, but regards to normal vision and just looking, we do not see the invisible things.
I think the answer lies in that the unknown but known facts which indeed far outweigh those who weigh modality out of nonexistence of photons which do not lead into maybe back into the void of absolute nothingness , where in fact photos do exists even though they do not exist in their own right as sentient beings, which are both alive and dead but living in a limbo which continues forever and was the fullness of empty concrete real reality of the empty nothing something- nesses- ness, that was other the other side of the coin of real material centre total emptiness, void of photons. which in fact were protons in disguise, which in turn did not prove that that they did not exist even though the exposed lurking in the darkness just waiting to inflict terrible pain inside your eyeballs because it spoke to me in a loud deep very quiet voice, but did exist when tests had proved that it did not to exist when in fact it did exist, as a very real concrete material object both soft to touch and as hard as the hardest diamond that hurt when I touched it with my one big toe. It was so real that the elusive photon was very real but did not exist at all, it was invisible even though it was very visible before it really existed when it affected all of the non-reality dimensional nothingness in the most profound way, not possible.
This led to scientific conclusion of the great minds of science and philosophy, that is was the absolute proof that photons did exist even though Mr Box insisted that they did not exist it was not the absolute proof that in fact, photons were a myth perpetrated by evil satanic beings which are the very essence of love and hate was wrong which proved that the proof was right before scientific methods proved, the opposite that the proof was wrong, making in into the actuality of non-positive emptiness within concrete reality of nothing which should have been but it should not have been when in fact it was even though the fact proved it was, even though it absolutely was not, that it was not real, although it was proved photons to be very real and that they existed on positive side of the negative magnet. In fact, it amazed the least insightful minds and baffled the intellects of the very enlightened ones, in how could it be that was both positive and negative at many places momentarily but in just absolute confined to just one place within the set boundaries of the infinite finite cosmos.
Mr Box I hope that makes some sense?
keep it cool
Alan
Alan
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
Yes me too, they told me this before, that is why I am referring to a Photon that is ''convertual''.
Thanks IAM for being a normal person.
added - I was thinking convirtual to represent things that can be converted but can not be seen like energy converts to work, we can see the work but we cant see the energy doing the work, the energy is practically ''virtual '' but I think virtual may be an error because virtual means doesnt exist, but regards to normal vision and just looking, we do not see the invisible things.
I think the answer lies in that the unknown but known facts which indeed far outweigh those who weigh modality out of nonexistence of photons which do not lead into maybe back into the void of absolute nothingness , where in fact photos do exists even though they do not exist in their own right as sentient beings, which are both alive and dead but living in a limbo which continues forever and was the fullness of empty concrete real reality of the empty nothing something- nesses- ness, that was other the other side of the coin of real material centre total emptiness, void of photons. which in fact were protons in disguise, which in turn did not prove that that they did not exist even though the exposed lurking in the darkness just waiting to inflict terrible pain inside your eyeballs because it spoke to me in a loud deep very quiet voice, but did exist when tests had proved that it did not to exist when in fact it did exist, as a very real concrete material object both soft to touch and as hard as the hardest diamond that hurt when I touched it with my one big toe. It was so real that the elusive photon was very real but did not exist at all, it was invisible even though it was very visible before it really existed when it affected all of the non-reality dimensional nothingness in the most profound way, not possible.
This led to scientific conclusion of the great minds of science and philosophy, that is was the absolute proof that photons did exist even though Mr Box insisted that they did not exist it was not the absolute proof that in fact, photons were a myth perpetrated by evil satanic beings which are the very essence of love and hate was wrong which proved that the proof was right before scientific methods proved, the opposite that the proof was wrong, making in into the actuality of non-positive emptiness within concrete reality of nothing which should have been but it should not have been when in fact it was even though the fact proved it was, even though it absolutely was not, that it was not real, although it was proved photons to be very real and that they existed on positive side of the negative magnet. In fact, it amazed the least insightful minds and baffled the intellects of the very enlightened ones, in how could it be that was both positive and negative at many places momentarily but in just absolute confined to just one place within the set boundaries of the infinite finite cosmos.
Mr Box I hope that makes some sense?
keep it cool
Alan
Alan
Cheers Alan, I can look at your post in several ways, 2 of them being-
1. A random generation of wording by a computer program
2. An ambiguous post with helpful intent
I will go for number 2 and say thanks, yes I understood some of it .
-
...are photons converted into heat or other?
Yes.
-
...are photons converted into heat or other?
Yes.
Do Photons permeate through ''empty'' space?
-
A Photon is not a new theory and neither is discussing it
It is if you make statements such as :
The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
a ''convertual'' polymorphic substance?
OK, let's start afresh.
Firstly, try to talk plain English. Don't say convertual if you mean "it can be converted".
Secondly, as has been said many times before, physics is not about proving things. Sometimes it is about describing how something behaves in a way which allows us to predict how it will behave in the future.
As has been said above, light can be described as a wave or a particle. When we talk about it as a particle we call it a photon. A photon is the smallest 'unit' of light (a brief flash) which we think cannot be divided into smaller units.
If you imagine the filament of a light bulb. It gets hot and electrons are excited to what we call higher energy levels, when they 'fall back' to a lower level they emit a brief flash of light which we call a photon. You can think of this flash as a pulse of electromagnetism, a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. Of course, the light filament is pouring out millions of these every second.
When these pulses hit a material they can transfer their energy to another form - heat, light at a different frequency, even a transfer of momentum. The exact transfer depends on the material and the mechanism of the interaction between the light/photons. However, at that point the photon/em pulse ceases to exist.
Whether you consider the photon to be converted to, say, heat depends at what level you want to consider the interaction. At top level, yes, but when we look at the mechanism in detail we might say no. For example, photons of infra red hitting a material will cause the atoms in the material will begin to vibrate - this vibration is what we call heat. The photon (em pulse) will stop vibrating and so ceases to exist.
If you want to understand why photons are described as such then follow up some of the suggestions eg photoelectric effect.
-
Take a magnifying glass and use it to focus the light from the sun onto the back of your hand. You then may appreciate the photon better.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
-
**rambling statement removed***
Alan
Not looking to argue but please don't waste our time with stuff like this. C'mon now...
-
Take a magnifying glass and use it to focus the light from the sun onto the back of your hand. You then may appreciate the photon better.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
Now THAT is friggin funny lol. Actually truly does get the point across well though, in a very direct and concise easy to understand way!
-
Take a magnifying glass and use it to focus the light from the sun onto the back of your hand. You then may appreciate the photon better.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
Now THAT is friggin funny lol. Actually truly does get the point across well though, in a very direct and concise easy to understand way!
E=ouch2
-
A Photon is not a new theory and neither is discussing it
It is if you make statements such as :
The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
a ''convertual'' polymorphic substance?
OK, let's start afresh.
Firstly, try to talk plain English. Don't say convertual if you mean "it can be converted".
Secondly, as has been said many times before, physics is not about proving things. Sometimes it is about describing how something behaves in a way which allows us to predict how it will behave in the future.
As has been said above, light can be described as a wave or a particle. When we talk about it as a particle we call it a photon. A photon is the smallest 'unit' of light (a brief flash) which we think cannot be divided into smaller units.
If you imagine the filament of a light bulb. It gets hot and electrons are excited to what we call higher energy levels, when they 'fall back' to a lower level they emit a brief flash of light which we call a photon. You can think of this flash as a pulse of electromagnetism, a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. Of course, the light filament is pouring out millions of these every second.
When these pulses hit a material they can transfer their energy to another form - heat, light at a different frequency, even a transfer of momentum. The exact transfer depends on the material and the mechanism of the interaction between the light/photons. However, at that point the photon/em pulse ceases to exist.
Whether you consider the photon to be converted to, say, heat depends at what level you want to consider the interaction. At top level, yes, but when we look at the mechanism in detail we might say no. For example, photons of infra red hitting a material will cause the atoms in the material will begin to vibrate - this vibration is what we call heat. The photon (em pulse) will stop vibrating and so ceases to exist.
If you want to understand why photons are described as such then follow up some of the suggestions eg photoelectric effect.
Well Colin I have already looked at the photo electric effect and Compton scattering , both of these theories describe an interaction involving a theoretical particle Photon, however none of these theories show the existence of the particle, a wave I accept to be true, I still hold judgement on the Photon because I am objective.
In the Compton idea, the result is a wavelength, in the photo electrical effect the result is a displaced electron, neither of these show a Photon, both of these show a wave and the idea of the Photon is based on the theoretical Photon which is yet to ''proven'' to me,
What you have provided so far I do not see how that can be classed as evidence when the Photon is hypothetical to begin with and a bit pretense.
What else is there that is evidence please?
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
Yes me too, they told me this before, that is why I am referring to a Photon that is ''convertual''.
Thanks IAM for being a normal person.
added - I was thinking convirtual to represent things that can be converted but can not be seen like energy converts to work, we can see the work but we cant see the energy doing the work, the energy is practically ''virtual '' but I think virtual may be an error because virtual means doesnt exist, but regards to normal vision and just looking, we do not see the invisible things.
I think the answer lies in that the unknown but known facts which indeed far outweigh those who weigh modality out of nonexistence of photons which do not lead into maybe back into the void of absolute nothingness , where in fact photos do exists even though they do not exist in their own right as sentient beings, which are both alive and dead but living in a limbo which continues forever and was the fullness of empty concrete real reality of the empty nothing something- nesses- ness, that was other the other side of the coin of real material centre total emptiness, void of photons. which in fact were protons in disguise, which in turn did not prove that that they did not exist even though the exposed lurking in the darkness just waiting to inflict terrible pain inside your eyeballs because it spoke to me in a loud deep very quiet voice, but did exist when tests had proved that it did not to exist when in fact it did exist, as a very real concrete material object both soft to touch and as hard as the hardest diamond that hurt when I touched it with my one big toe. It was so real that the elusive photon was very real but did not exist at all, it was invisible even though it was very visible before it really existed when it affected all of the non-reality dimensional nothingness in the most profound way, not possible.
This led to scientific conclusion of the great minds of science and philosophy, that is was the absolute proof that photons did exist even though Mr Box insisted that they did not exist it was not the absolute proof that in fact, photons were a myth perpetrated by evil satanic beings which are the very essence of love and hate was wrong which proved that the proof was right before scientific methods proved, the opposite that the proof was wrong, making in into the actuality of non-positive emptiness within concrete reality of nothing which should have been but it should not have been when in fact it was even though the fact proved it was, even though it absolutely was not, that it was not real, although it was proved photons to be very real and that they existed on positive side of the negative magnet. In fact, it amazed the least insightful minds and baffled the intellects of the very enlightened ones, in how could it be that was both positive and negative at many places momentarily but in just absolute confined to just one place within the set boundaries of the infinite finite cosmos.
Mr Box I hope that makes some sense?
keep it cool
Alan
Alan
Cheers Alan, I can look at your post in several ways, 2 of them being-
1. A random generation of wording by a computer program
2. An ambiguous post with helpful intent
I will go for number 2 and say thanks, yes I understood some of it .
It was all me, no random generation by the computer just a joke to lighten things up and maybe get over to you that many of your posts are similar. You should really try to explain yourself in a more coherent and succinct way rather than the circular and sometimes the ambiguous way you do.
I do think that you are a sort of original thinker, but you really do not seem to have the language skills to express exactly what you mean and receive hurtful responses from some other members in the process.
"You are always polite" and do not deserve the flack you get, and I think you would make a good friend, if you do not mind can I put you on my buddy list?
I am not mocking you in this post, it is a serious attempt at helping you and extending a hand of friendship!!
In future, I will refrain from any remarks that achieve nothing but hurt and discord!!
Be Blessed
Alan
-
I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
Yes me too, they told me this before, that is why I am referring to a Photon that is ''convertual''.
Thanks IAM for being a normal person.
added - I was thinking convirtual to represent things that can be converted but can not be seen like energy converts to work, we can see the work but we cant see the energy doing the work, the energy is practically ''virtual '' but I think virtual may be an error because virtual means doesnt exist, but regards to normal vision and just looking, we do not see the invisible things.
I think the answer lies in that the unknown but known facts which indeed far outweigh those who weigh modality out of nonexistence of photons which do not lead into maybe back into the void of absolute nothingness , where in fact photos do exists even though they do not exist in their own right as sentient beings, which are both alive and dead but living in a limbo which continues forever and was the fullness of empty concrete real reality of the empty nothing something- nesses- ness, that was other the other side of the coin of real material centre total emptiness, void of photons. which in fact were protons in disguise, which in turn did not prove that that they did not exist even though the exposed lurking in the darkness just waiting to inflict terrible pain inside your eyeballs because it spoke to me in a loud deep very quiet voice, but did exist when tests had proved that it did not to exist when in fact it did exist, as a very real concrete material object both soft to touch and as hard as the hardest diamond that hurt when I touched it with my one big toe. It was so real that the elusive photon was very real but did not exist at all, it was invisible even though it was very visible before it really existed when it affected all of the non-reality dimensional nothingness in the most profound way, not possible.
This led to scientific conclusion of the great minds of science and philosophy, that is was the absolute proof that photons did exist even though Mr Box insisted that they did not exist it was not the absolute proof that in fact, photons were a myth perpetrated by evil satanic beings which are the very essence of love and hate was wrong which proved that the proof was right before scientific methods proved, the opposite that the proof was wrong, making in into the actuality of non-positive emptiness within concrete reality of nothing which should have been but it should not have been when in fact it was even though the fact proved it was, even though it absolutely was not, that it was not real, although it was proved photons to be very real and that they existed on positive side of the negative magnet. In fact, it amazed the least insightful minds and baffled the intellects of the very enlightened ones, in how could it be that was both positive and negative at many places momentarily but in just absolute confined to just one place within the set boundaries of the infinite finite cosmos.
Mr Box I hope that makes some sense?
keep it cool
Alan
Alan
Cheers Alan, I can look at your post in several ways, 2 of them being-
1. A random generation of wording by a computer program
2. An ambiguous post with helpful intent
I will go for number 2 and say thanks, yes I understood some of it .
It was all me, no random generation by the computer just a joke to lighten things up and maybe get over to you that many of your posts are similar. You should really try to explain yourself in a more coherent and succinct way rather than the circular and sometimes the ambiguous way you do.
I do think that you are a sort of original thinker, but you really do not seem to have the language skills to express exactly what you mean and receive hurtful responses from some other members in the process.
"You are always polite" and do not deserve the flack you get, and I think you would make a good friend, if you do not mind can I put you on my buddy list?
I am not mocking you in this post, it is a serious attempt at helping you and extending a hand of friendship!!
In future, I will refrain from any remarks that achieve nothing but hurt and discord!!
Be Blessed
Alan
Of course you can add me to your buddy list, you do not need my permission, everybody is my friend, even my ''enemies'' but they just do not know they are really my friend yet.
Yes I am an original thinker, I try not to mimic other theories , but rather prefer to start from ''blank''. You are correct, I fall apart when trying to explain and there is also a problem of ambiguity on ''both sides of the fence''.
P.s And please forgive me for not posting in other threads that I have not started, I am not allowed to anymore.
-
Well I personally think Newtonian mechanics of light were correct in the form of a wave, solar energy created by the wave of light and the ''capture'' of light. The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
So here we have to ask: how finely can we divide up the wave, and still have light?
In other words, is the wave quantized?
You can turn on a laser pointer, and you recognize that the arrival of the "tip" of the wave is a significant event, which can be used to time things.
In telecommunications, a continuous laser wave like this is fed into a "modulator": It passes or blocks laser light.
- Older systems could block or unblock a billion times per second. Each of these billion times produces a new "tip", just like the one you recognize. The tip is not special - any part of the wave can become a new "tip".
- Newer systems turn on and off 10 billion times per second. And each of these 10 billion segments has a new "tip". So there is nothing special about the start of a wave - any part of the laser light can act the same as the tip of a laser beam.
- That was looking at dividing the light into short time segments.
It is also possible to attenuate light, to reduce its amplitude; by attenuating it enough, you can reduce it to the point where there is only (say) 1 photon per second. You can use a single-photon detector to count them, and measure when they arrive. This does not work with a pure wave - you can attenuate a wave infinitely. This shows that light is quantized.
It is possible to measure the energy of these photons by shining them on a photocathode. Einstein got the Nobel prize for showing how the energy of these photons is proportional to the frequency.
So, overall:
- The wave nature of light is a good explanation at high intensities and continuous waves.
- But when you divide light into smaller blocks, the wave model does not hold water.
- Only the photon model explains light on very small timescales or at very low amplitudes, or when it strikes a photocathode.
- Light is quantized
- We call these quantum units of light "Photons", and they are real.
Note: This is not to be confused with "virtual photons", which are not so real.
-
Well I personally think Newtonian mechanics of light were correct in the form of a wave, solar energy created by the wave of light and the ''capture'' of light. The ''tip'' of the wave being mistaken for a Photon in thinking.
So here we have to ask: how finely can we divide up the wave, and still have light?
In other words, is the wave quantized?
You can turn on a laser pointer, and you recognize that the arrival of the "tip" of the wave is a significant event, which can be used to time things.
In telecommunications, a continuous laser wave like this is fed into a "modulator": It passes or blocks laser light.
- Older systems could block or unblock a billion times per second. Each of these billion times produces a new "tip", just like the one you recognize. The tip is not special - any part of the wave can become a new "tip".
- Newer systems turn on and off 10 billion times per second. And each of these 10 billion segments has a new "tip". So there is nothing special about the start of a wave - any part of the laser light can act the same as the tip of a laser beam.
- That was looking at dividing the light into short time segments.
It is also possible to attenuate light, to reduce its amplitude; by attenuating it enough, you can reduce it to the point where there is only (say) 1 photon per second. You can use a single-photon detector to count them, and measure when they arrive. This does not work with a pure wave - you can attenuate a wave infinitely. This shows that light is quantized.
It is possible to measure the energy of these photons by shining them on a photocathode. Einstein got the Nobel prize for showing how the energy of these photons is proportional to the frequency.
So, overall:
- The wave nature of light is a good explanation at high intensities and continuous waves.
- But when you divide light into smaller blocks, the wave model does not hold water.
- Only the photon model explains light on very small timescales or at very low amplitudes, or when it strikes a photocathode.
- Light is quantized
- We call these quantum units of light "Photons", and they are real.
Note: This is not to be confused with "virtual photons", which are not so real.
I understand how to deconstruct something to a singular point of isolation like in this example you are giving of the Photon, however are you in considering this, considering the constructive whole of light is the majority and by partitioning a segment of light you are simply causing the isolation by your own thoughts ?
What do people think surrounds this single Photon?
Space allows light to permeate? this was not answered
Space does not divide light? (if it did we would see dark patches everywhere instead of ''empty'' space!)
-
Do Photons exist?
Yes, and there are various methods that let you count individual photons.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
If light were purely a wave, these techniques would not work.
considering the constructive whole of light is the majority and by partitioning a segment of light you are simply causing the isolation by your own thoughts?
If I have managed to decode this example of doublespeak...
- In high intensity light, the photon is a miniscule component. You can almost ignore them in many applications.
- In low-intensity light, the photon is a major component. If you ignore them, you ignore the light.
Some experiments in nature have to work with very low light levels, partitioned and isolated at the level of individual photons:
- Optical astronomy for faint objects
- Spectroscopy for moderately faint objects
- Neutrino detectors
- Detectors for many other subatomic particles
- High speed telecommunications
- Using entangled light to transmit qubits or encrypt data
So it is not just my thoughts that are partitioning the light - many real-world situations also partition light into small segments, at the level of an individual photon.
-
There is a lot of science that is based around the Photon, does the Photon exist?
Here is described how to prove in laboratory that photons really exists, that is, it's described a definitive proof of their existence:
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf
--
lightarrow
-
Yes I am an original thinker, I try not to mimic other theories , but rather prefer to start from ''blank''. You are correct, I fall apart when trying to explain and there is also a problem of ambiguity on ''both sides of the fence''.
What exactly makes you an "original thinker"? Saying that because you come up with lots of ideas does not make you an original thinker of any value because you'd have to present cogent logical arguments and follow the scientific method leading to results that reflect how nature actually is using an elegant theory. I've never seen you do that but I've always seen you believe that you do it.
-
Space allows light to permeate? this was not answered
I would rather say "space allows light to propagate", or even "space allows photons to propagate".
Space also allows bullets and meteorites to propagate...
"Permeate" carries ideas of "pervade, spread through, fill, filter through, diffuse through, imbue, penetrate, pass through, percolate through, perfuse, extend throughout, be disseminated through, flow through, charge, suffuse, run through, steep, impregnate, inform, infiltrate".
Permeate implies that the nature of the object (photon) is affected by the thing through which it is permeating.
While Propagate implies that the object (photon) continues unchanged.
does the Photon exist?
Before around 1900, there was a debate that continued for centuries about whether visible light was a wave or a particle.
Luminaries like Newton and Huygens came down on one side of the argument or another.
However, with the discoveries of radioactivity and quantum theory during the 1900s, we now understand that light is both a wave and a particle (photon). The energy of the photon is proportional to its frequency.
- Radio waves are electromagnetic waves with a very low frequency, and their photons have very low energy. The wave characteristics are dominant.
- Gamma rays are electromagnetic waves with a very high frequency, and their photons have a very high energy. The particle characteristics are dominant.
- Visible light is electromagnetic waves with an intermediate frequency, and their photons have an intermediate energy. The particle and wave characteristics are both present, but one or the other may be dominant in a particular experiment.
Because of the intermediate frequency of light, it is possible to see why physicists were confused for so long.
But we now understand clearly that both wave and particle characteristics are present and inseparable; for a complete description of electromagnetic radiation, you need both.
Mr Box, perhaps you are so focused on developing your new theory that you cannot look objectively at the wealth of information and accurate results from quantum theory that has been amassed over the past century?