[Craig W. Thomson]

"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation."

The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains.

Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."

In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Ah but can singularities be observed?

"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.

I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."

This idea solves two problems.

First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.

Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.

I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.

[agyejy]

Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."

I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry. Also, I just linked to a pdf about the propagation of waves that made it clear in no uncertain terms that spherical waves propagate along all three spatial dimensions.

In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.

The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three. The wave function of a photon always spreads in the x and y directions as it moves in the z direction. This must happen in order for the intensity of light to fall of at a rate proportional to 1/r as observation has confirmed. Groups of photons may interfere constructively and destructively to make a wave front that appears one or two dimension over a selected area but that is close as it ever gets. A photon is never part of an atom. As I have said before a photon that is absorbed by an atom is said to be annihilated. It ceases to exist. Scientists would not use the word annihilated if the photon didn't cease to exist. Further, there are no electrostatic oscillations of an atom after the absorption of a photon and no electrostatic oscillations means no photon.

Now if you want to talk scattering over absorption that is a whole different story. In scattering a photon that is not the right energy to be absorbed sets up a forced oscillation in the electrons of the atom. That forced oscillation starts creating another photon while the atom is still interacting with the first photon and the two photons interfere with each other. The result is an otherwise identical outgoing photon usually traveling in a slightly different direction. Now in general the radius of a single atom is never larger than about 0.5 nm and the most energy it could ever take to strip an electron from a neutral atom is ~24.584 eV which corresponds to a wavelength of ~50 nm. Typical visible light photons are in the 100s to almost 1000s of nm range in terms of wavelengths. This means that in most interactions between atoms and photons that photon is going to be interacting with several atoms along its direction of travel at once. Additionally the photon spreads out perpendicularly to its direction of travel meaning it interacts with even more atoms simultaneously. The end result is that is makes almost no sense to talk about a single atom and a single photon interacting as a real occurrence when discussing the propagation of light through a medium. The collective action of many atoms undergoing forced oscillations and producing many electromagnetic waves that all interfere with each other result in the observed speed of light through any medium. It is never as simple as one photon and one atom in any real scenario.

I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?

That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.

[jeffreyH]

Ah but can singularities be observed?

"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.

I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."

This idea solves two problems.

First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.

Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.

I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.

While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.

[Craig W. Thomson]

While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.

I'm not the type to assume things, unless they are something that generally falls under the category of "common sense." I merely feel that, in a physics forum, I should explain myself fully in a post. I'm certainly not trying be patronizing about your knowledge. If there's an assumption being made on my part, it's that someone might be reading my post who knows either more or less than either you or I do, or might even reply to my post, as this IS a public forum. To me, that's a "common sense" observation.

[jeffreyH]

So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?

[Craig W. Thomson]

I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.

You said: "...the wave will have motion along all three of the plains." Okay, so the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but what about the spherical wave of an earthquake? Don't get mad. Stop making mistakes.

The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.

FALSE! Just plain false. Or, just plane false. Whichever you prefer.

I said: "I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?" Your reply:

That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.

That's not a claim. That's a question. Big difference. Speaking of claims, despite your earlier claim, I think YOU are trying to make ME mad. That's why you keep reading things into my posts that I didn't say. If you put that question back into the context where it belongs, it makes sense. I said, "There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang." Now, of course, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is part of the context of the Big Bang. Maybe you should try leaving my statements in their context where they belong.

You don't know what's happening in a black hole because they can't be observed. My suggestion is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is being reversed inside black holes. Mass, energy, particles, light elements, heavy elements, all of it is merging into a plasma soup, just like the plasma soup that emerged from the Big Bang before it started decaying to more stable forms.

I am eagerly awaiting your latest straw man argument. The suspense is killing me.

[agyejy]

I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.

You said: "...the wave will have motion along all three of the plains." Okay, so the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but what about the spherical wave of an earthquake? Don't get mad. Stop making mistakes.

I admitted that I said plains when I meant planes while talking about mathematical planes however I never made that typo when I was talking about plane waves. Also I'm clearly not angry after all I'm not repeatedly attempting to shame a person for a typo.

The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.

FALSE! Just plain false. Or, just plane false. Whichever you prefer.

Prove it. I'm pretty sure I actually already linked at least one reference on the propagation of single photons (if not I can and it wasn't that last thing I linked on light propagation either). Single photon wave functions travel forward while also dispersing (getting larger) in directions perpendicular to their motion. The wave function spreads into a spherical cone and the photon can be found anywhere on the edge of that spherical cone. Thus you can't describe the propagation of a single photon without taking into account all three dimensions.

I said: "I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?" Your reply:

That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.

That's not a claim. That's a question.

The first half is a statement or claim if you will. The second half is a question. Clearly you wouldn't say the first half if you didn't think it was true.

Big difference. Speaking of claims, despite your earlier claim, I think YOU are trying to make ME mad. That's why you keep reading things into my posts that I didn't say. If you put that question back into the context where it belongs, it makes sense. I said, "There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang." Now, of course, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is part of the context of the Big Bang. Maybe you should try leaving my statements in their context where they belong.

Just because an event happens more than once doesn't make it cyclic. Something that is cyclic starts out in one state progresses through several other states (or just one other state) and then returns exactly to the state at which it started. Stars do not return to clouds of hydrogen and helium and no novae, supernovae, and other star death does not count because any resulting clouds do not have the same composition, are generally traveling away from the dead star in all directions, and a core is left behind. The fact that other stars form does not make the processes cyclic. There very well could be other Big Bangs past the edge of the visible universe. This is a theory that has been floating around for quite some time. But again that doesn't make them cyclical.

You don't know what's happening in a black hole because they can't be observed. My suggestion is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is being reversed inside black holes. Mass, energy, particles, light elements, heavy elements, all of it is merging into a plasma soup, just like the plasma soup that emerged from the Big Bang before it started decaying to more stable forms.

There is currently no way to know anything about what happens to things that fall into black holes. Without observational evidence or a good predictive theoretical framework that is designed to work for the conditions at the singularity there is no point in idle speculation. Certainly idle speculation of what goes on inside a black hole should not be used to then speculate about the nature of the universe as a hole. Certainly the answer, should there be one, to what goes on inside a black hole will be important to cosmology but until we have evidence and an theoretical framework it is meaningless to speculate. Its especially meaningless when your speculations lead you to the conclusion that the entire universe and everything in it is cyclic because events like star formation happened more than once in different places in spite of the accepted definition of cyclic.

I am eagerly awaiting your latest straw man argument. The suspense is killing me.

You libel me in basically every post for no reason and I'm supposedly the one trying to make you angry?

[guest39538]

So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?

I am not sure to whom your question is  aimed at, I personally have not heard of that and will have to do some research to gain some knowledge of it.

Thank you for providing something new to me.


added-

''Gauge theory gravity (GTG) is a theory of gravitation cast in the mathematical language of geometric algebra. To those familiar with general relativity, it is highly reminiscent of the tetrad formalism although there are significant conceptual differences.''


Algebra does not explain gravity surely unless 0=0, A=A,B=B, X=X,Y=X,Z=X,t=X?

I tried watching a video , I had no idea what they were trying to say.

added - I have read Wiki and do not pretend to understand all of it, but


y→y'= delta y→x,y,z'= f(x)  when discussing light, so I assume this must apply to gravity also .

gravity contraction =   (>r=<A ) where r is radius length between objects and A is the area of the visual x,y plane of the objects.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I think the gauge theory you  mentioned is similar to what I am saying about space-time v ''space-time''

Space-time existing in an invariant ''n-dimensional space-time''

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Craig W. Thomson]

You libel me in basically every post for no reason and I'm supposedly the one trying to make you angry?

"Libel" is me trying to damage your reputation. You're "agyegy," a sock puppet, so the only reputation you have that I am aware of is your reputation for going off on tangents, obfuscating issues, putting words in my mouth, bloviating at great length, contradicting factual statements, being a condescending know-it-all, and a stalker that followed me here from physforum.com.

I'm almost starting to think you are waitedavid137's sock puppet. Why is it you always target me? There's plenty of other people to correct out there. I think I know the answer. Like him, you are a pseudointellectual. You can't think. All you can do is regurgitate. I think memorizers like the two of you feel threatened by actual smart people.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Prove it. I'm pretty sure I actually already linked at least one reference on the propagation of single photons (if not I can and it wasn't that last thing I linked on light propagation either). Single photon wave functions travel forward while also dispersing (getting larger) in directions perpendicular to their motion. The wave function spreads into a spherical cone and the photon can be found anywhere on the edge of that spherical cone. Thus you can't describe the propagation of a single photon without taking into account all three dimensions.

What do you mean, "prove it" ?? Are you this dense for real, or is it an act?

Again, a photon travels forward along the intersection of two planes in a straight line at c in a vacuum. You can consider that line the intersection of plane x and plane y. If the photon wishes to continue travelling in a straight line along the intersection of the x and y planes, it CANNOT FOLLOW A STRAIGHT LINE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. It can ONLY OSCILLATE along the z plane. Again, except for maybe entangled particles or some strange case, a single particle like a photon cannot go two different directions at the same time. If it is following a straight line, it cannot follow a perpendicular straight line simultaneously. I grow weary from having to explain this to you about a dozen times in as many days in plane, plain English. Get yourself an English tutor, a science teacher, a therapist, or all three, but leave me alone if you're going to waste my time with your endless obfuscation.

[Craig W. Thomson]

there is no point in idle speculation.

Then please leave this thread immediately.

[agyejy]

"Libel" is me trying to damage your reputation. You're "agyegy," a sock puppet, so the only reputation you have that I am aware of is your reputation for going off on tangents, obfuscating issues, putting words in my mouth, bloviating at great length, contradicting factual statements, being a condescending know-it-all, and a stalker that followed me here from physforum.com.

I'm almost starting to think you are waitedavid137's sock puppet. Why is it you always target me? There's plenty of other people to correct out there. I think I know the answer. Like him, you are a pseudointellectual. You can't think. All you can do is regurgitate. I think memorizers like the two of you feel threatened by actual smart people.

So more libel then?

What do you mean, "prove it" ?? Are you this dense for real, or is it an act?

Again, a photon travels forward along the intersection of two planes in a straight line at c in a vacuum. You can consider that line the intersection of plane x and plane y. If the photon wishes to continue travelling in a straight line along the intersection of the x and y planes, it CANNOT FOLLOW A STRAIGHT LINE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. It can ONLY OSCILLATE along the z plane. Again, except for maybe entangled particles or some strange case, a single particle like a photon cannot go two different directions at the same time. If it is following a straight line, it cannot follow a perpendicular straight line simultaneously. I grow weary from having to explain this to you about a dozen times in as many days in plane, plain English. Get yourself an English tutor, a science teacher, a therapist, or all three, but leave me alone if you're going to waste my time with your endless obfuscation.

You are interpreting the schematic diagrams of light propagation too literally. For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions. The electric field points in one direction and the magnetic field points in the direction perpendicular to that and the direction of forward motion. Both fields overlap at all points in space. That is what it means to be a vector field and is one of the very first things you learn in a college course on electromagnetism. Here is a pretty good answer from stackexchange with diagrams demonstrating what I just said:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194233/what-does-a-light-wave-look-like-3d-model

For cylindrical and spherical waves things are a little different but the electric and magnetic fields still overlap. In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Then please leave this thread immediately.

Why? I'm allowed to express my opinions to exactly the same degree you are entitled to express yours.

[Craig W. Thomson]

You are interpreting the schematic diagrams of light propagation too literally. For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.

False. It is understood that "infinity" is not a legitimate solution to an equation. I'm only beginning to learn Calculus, but I think what you are referring to is a "limit, " as in:

Limit (mathematics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.[1] Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.

So, maybe according to the mathematics, those fields "approach" infinity or something, but they do NOT actually extend to infinity.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but there's another limit: The speed of light. No part of a photon can be infinitely far away because it would take infinitely long to get back. In fact, when a photon is absorbed, that takes place "in an instant." The photon is annihilated and an atom in an excited state is created on the spot. There's no hanging around for hundreds of millions of years waiting for some component of a photon to get back from the Andromeda Galaxy.

You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.

[guest39538]

You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.

In my opinion maths is limitless , it  is travel that has a limit.    To me what captures the essence of reality is simply what we see and observe, I am quite sure I can observe myself and Andromeda simultaneously, I am quite sure that Andromeda is not coming ''backwards'' in ''time''.

I am more than sure that the now of Andromeda is approaching my now.

[agyejy]

False. It is understood that "infinity" is not a legitimate solution to an equation. I'm only beginning to learn Calculus, but I think what you are referring to is a "limit, " as in:

Limit (mathematics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.[1] Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.

So, maybe according to the mathematics, those fields "approach" infinity or something, but they do NOT actually extend to infinity.

If only I had said something about how plane waves are idealizations and therefore not actually possible. Oh wait I did:

Here is a little bit about wave propagation:

https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf

Generally speaking there is no such thing as a perfect plane or cylindrical wave because they require an infinite plane or line to generate them. All waves propagating through space have some spherical nature to them because their sources are all finite in extent.

It would have been even better if I had continued by explaining how the idealized plane wave case generalizes to say the single photon case. Oh wait I did that too:

For cylindrical and spherical waves things are a little different but the electric and magnetic fields still overlap. In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Also, the fact that a vector field is taken to extend to infinity in all directions isn't a limit and really has nothing to do with calculus (in most cases). It is verbal (and sometimes mathematical) shortcut for saying that whatever is happening at the edges of whatever system we are studying isn't impacting the particular property we are talking about. Of course one would never treat a single photon like that or at least not without a great deal of care mathematically.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but there's another limit: The speed of light. No part of a photon can be infinitely far away because it would take infinitely long to get back. In fact, when a photon is absorbed, that takes place "in an instant." The photon is annihilated and an atom in an excited state is created on the spot. There's no hanging around for hundreds of millions of years waiting for some component of a photon to get back from the Andromeda Galaxy.

Well for starters I clearly had this to say about single photons:

In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Hmm, I don't see anything about a single photon extending to infinity in there. Unless someone changed the definition of "relatively small" to "infinite" while I wasn't looking. I seem to recall someone saying something about strawman arguments awhile back but I can't seem to remember who. Whoever it was should probably remember that when one lives in a glass house one shouldn't throw stones.

That aside it is well known and experimentally verified that quantum mechanics and therefore quantum mechanical fields are inherently non-local. Which means when a photon is absorbed by an atom at a certain position all the electric and magnetic field oscillations associated with that photon at all points in space that photon can be said to exist (everywhere you could have possibly detected it) instantly vanish. This was a hard thing for many physicists to come to grips with but it has been experimentally verified so there is no other choice but to accept it. Luckily no information is transmitted from the points where the oscillations vanish to the absorption point or vice versa so causality is preserved.

You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.

I clearly wasn't. Also, you are doing that thing where you try to copy the form of my arguments. You really shouldn't do that it never works out well.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Well for starters I clearly had this to say about single photons

You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.

[agyejy]

You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.

Just to be clear your current line of argument is that I've provided too much support for my statements and because of that I am wrong? That is a very interesting line of reasoning. Also, I really suggest you stop trying to provoke me into anger (we've already cleared up that I never made the "plain" typo when speaking of plane waves). I find it slightly humorous but the moderators might eventually start to take a dim view of it. We've already been asked to stay civil at least once in this thread.

[Craig W. Thomson]

You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.

Just to be clear your current line of argument is that I've provided too much support for my statements and because of that I am wrong? That is a very interesting line of reasoning. Also, I really suggest you stop trying to provoke me into anger (we've already cleared up that I never made the "plain" typo when speaking of plane waves). I find it slightly humorous but the moderators might eventually start to take a dim view of it. We've already been asked to stay civil at least once in this thread.

No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.

[guest39538]

. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Whoa! that is a rather rude and disrespectful thing to say about a moderator.   You are the one who is privileged to be here, you and your friend have done nothing but moan at each other ''flaming''.

Neither of you are an authority on science, STOP being so deluded.