0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The other day I was doing something quite mundane, maybe frying an egg or something, I don’t recall exactly what it was. But then it suddenly occurred to me the precision with which science is able to explain almost every phenomena in such excruciating detail that everything, from the trajectory of a drop of sputtering oil to the fertilization of an orchid, can be seen as a series of minutely connected events. It is truly amazing if you think about it, superstition, which played such an important role throughout human history, has been almost overwhelmed by such detailed knowledge. The very fact that such knowledge can exist is almost superstitious in itself. Why don’t unexplained things exist, it seems almost a paradox in itself. Why do events have such perfect explanations ? Yet when it comes to the photon, and forget for the moment the difference between the macro and the micro world and stick to available solutions. Why did Physicists choose a model of the photon in which it was neither a particle nor a wave? I can understand if physicists said that the photon is a synthesis between a wave and a particle. But this is expressly what it is understood what it is not meant to be. My question is, leaving aside for the moment the question of the maths behind the decision which is shaky to say the least, what gives the physicist the right to arbitrarily choose between two alternatives and then to maintain in the face of evidence to the contrary, showing that his theory is full of holes, that his decision was irrevocably right! Surely the rest of humanity, the artists and the philosophers and the so called rational man should have some say in the matter too?
Surely the rest of humanity, the artists and the philosophers and the so called rational man should have some say in the matter too?
Would you hire artists and philosophers with no training to draw up blueprints for building your car? It would probably be a very interesting design, but it would also fall apart on the highway.
If you can come up with a more satisfactory model which precisely matches all existing experimental results at least as well as the currently-accepted theory (fudge, if you insist), then go ahead...
To me this sounds like a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo concocted by a witch doctor. This is not the only example of venturing into the supernatural, I can quote at least five or six examples to illustrate the point.
It is the supernatural
It is the supernatural, if, by that, you mean something outside the experience of Natural Scientists up to the point the idea developed. It is just one of those things which are not explicable using the cosy, familiar ideas of the classical Physicist.
The most absurd aspect of this situation is that physicists are not even willing to discuss anything new.
You claim that the theory is "full of holes," but you have yet to actually describe any problems with it aside from your objection that you think it's "supernatural."
Quote You claim that the theory is "full of holes," but you have yet to actually describe any problems with it aside from your objection that you think it's "supernatural." This is really phenomenal, You are so wrapped up in mathematics that you can't seem to see the forest for the trees! Wake up and smell the coffee! Look an object cannot disembody itself, if you want clarification on what this means. An object starts of at point A it then dismbodies itself,(i.e., exists in all places between point A and point B) until it finally re-manifests itself at point B. Apart from disembodiment, an object cannot be in two places at the same time! An object cannot possess two separate identities at the same time. If an object does posses any of these attributes it is supernatural. OK. So that is the definition of supernatural, what is there for me to describe.
I was trying to stimulate this interchange in an earlier thread but, maybe the ideas will come out here. My view:Photons are not little bullets. All they are is small portions of energy.
An atom is small compared with optical wavelengths so the emitted photon has an influence (radiation pattern, in antenna terms) which covers a huge solid angle. Because of the dipole-like nature of the electron's so-called orbit, the field is not omnidirectional, more doughnut shaped.
I am still having a problem explaining, satisfactorily, the interaction of a (conducting) reflecting surface with a beam of light and using the photon idea. There is an implication that, although the fields associated with photons don't actually affect each other (superposition rules) the interference / diffraction patterns determine the most likely direction in which most of the reflected photons will interact with a target object lies along the 'conventional' reflected beam.I suppose, in fact, it is similar to the two slit interference problem and best dealt with using wave theory.
you can't predict where, in all the solid angle, the photon will be emitted
It's right. You find every possible path and then you sum the amplitudes
QuoteIt's right. You find every possible path and then you sum the amplitudesYes - but you are using the classical (Huygens) approach. (BTW, you add the phasors not the amplitudes!) It works perfectly but I was trying to think in terms of one photon and where it would be most likely to end up. I guess that's a nonsense question, really - falling into the same trap that I was complaining about!
Do you remember when I wrote that a photon is not an object? Would you mind if I rephrased your question to read : “Do you remember when I wrote that I think that a photon is not an object." The reason I say this is that as Einstein so succinctly put it. All physical theories are a free creation of the human mind. There is no guarantee that this is how nature really is. The theory stands or falls on its ability to predict a series of events.
The photon’s energy is spreading out into space!” The exclamation mark is mine. So stripped of your comments about the lack of ability in a layman to understand these concepts and a need to understand Calculus in order to comprehend, what do you really have? OK you are going to come back by saying that while it is traveling the photon takes the form of a wave, then how on earth does it retain it energy intact? You tell me.
Ok. So, if it's an object, can you tell me, for example, its dimensions?
ask me any question and if the answer I give you is not more compact, more to the point and more reasonable than its QM counterpart. I will apologise.
How big is the photon? Well as you can see it has a wave-like origin, since there are so many possible photon energies it is not possible to give an exact physical size, although this should not, exceed a few nanonmeters in breadth or length.
What experimental / mathematical evidence is behind it?
In fact photons (light) does not travel like that, it travels as an interconnected group
If the photons were to change color all together how would you know that they have been red shifted, what would you use for comparison?