[guest39538]

This thread is just one more example of your inability to sort out good information from the bad and inspires you to concoct another one of your bogus and flawed concepts. We don't see darkness,

You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?

[Ethos_]

You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?

That twisted retort is not even worthy of a reply Mr. Box.............but for the sake of consistency, I'll make it plain enough that even you should grasp the concept. That consideration may also be assuming too much I'm sad to say. Nevertheless........................................


There is a technical difference between "to distinguish" and "to see". I "see" when light provides information to my eyes. But I can "distinguish" the absence of light when there is none to be "seen".

Nobody ever "sees" the dark because without light, the eye doesn't receive any luminal information to send the brain. The brain then correctly determines that because no objects are "visible", it must be dark.

So yes Mr. Box, I can "distinguish the difference between night and day." When it's daytime, light provides information about my surroundings. However, when it's totally dark and no light is present, my eyes "see nothing" so my "intelligence" tells me that because I can "see nothing" it must surely be dark.

Now Mr. Box, or should I now call you "Mr. Troll"? Understanding that; As you have formerly so properly confessed to being: The most prolific troll present here at TNS.

[guest39538]

You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?

That twisted retort is not even worthy of a reply Mr. Box.............but for the sake of consistency, I'll make it plain enough that even you should grasp the concept. That consideration may also be assuming too much I'm sad to say. Nevertheless........................................


There is a technical difference between "to distinguish" and "to see". I "see" when light provides information to my eyes. But I can "distinguish" the absence of light when there is none to be "seen".

Nobody ever "sees" the dark because without light, the eye doesn't receive any luminal information to send the brain. The brain then correctly determines that because no objects are "visible", it must be dark.

So yes Mr. Box, I can "distinguish the difference between night and day." When it's daytime, light provides information about my surroundings. However, when it's totally dark and no light is present, my eyes "see nothing" so my "intelligence" tells me that because I can "see nothing" it must surely be dark.

Now Mr. Box, or should I now call you "Mr. Troll"? Understanding that; As you have formerly so properly confessed to being: The most prolific troll present here at TNS.

Yes you can call me Mr Troll if you like, but you would still be incorrect.   Do you know the difference between subjective and objective?

You re trying to tell me your subjective thoughts that were learnt to you by education and ''programmed'' into your mind by using somebody else subjective thoughts. . The objective reality is what we see and not of somebodies so called ''objective'' thoughts with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

We can distinguish a distance that is ''illuminated'' between ourselves and a shadow, we can see that the darkness of the shadow is a distance away from us thus proving we see darkness.


Anyone who thinks anything other than this  is quite clearly deranged.

[Ethos_]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

We can distinguish a distance that is ''illuminated'' between ourselves and a shadow, we can see that the darkness of the shadow is a distance away from us thus proving we see darkness.

Wrong..........We see shadows as areas of our lesser illuminated environment.

Try this experiment: Place yourself in a totally dark room. Looking around you should "see nothing", no light or illumination of any kind. Now, close your eyes. What do you see? Are you prepared to tell me that you can see darkness with your eyes closed? Because in this environment, whether your eyes are open or closed, you see the same thing.............NOTHING.

When it's totally dark, no light at all, we "see nothing", we don't "see" darkness.

Anyone who thinks anything other than this  is quite clearly deranged.

So now you revert to insults do you?

New flash.............When anybody refuses to accept reality and chooses to live in their own made-up version of it, the medical profession would label that person as deranged Mr. Box.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Fine, you may have the right knowledge to answer, I also do accept that we have evidence for the existence of the photons, heck we even know the process and conditions that create them, but do we have proof that the photons are really destroyed instead of simple became inert in the absence of wavelength frequencies, such as the light? What I mean wth that, when a photon appears and disappears, how do we know that it wasn't another photon activated by the same frequency that activated when passing or letting the first or original one behind?
 If possible, how do we even know it was "a photon", and not a whole backgroung aleatory sparking due frequencies, seeming to be moving at the speed of light with the wavelenght frequencies?
 Think about a photon properties and its very intristing, not specific shape, can't be splited, only can be created (acceptable) and destroyed (are they?)
 Of course photons can still be created, but in the absence of particles to do it, could be possible the wavelength activate inactivated photons that where already there and deactivating them again as the smae frequencies have passed by, never having ever moving the photons but traved trought them?
 In a last question, and no one need to know the answer only the possibility, could the photons that we think that we saw and observed as being created on experimentation, never were created at all, only irradiated by the wavelength of the frequency we created on the experiment?

 Of course for that you cannot use the hadron collider, cause as they know photons can be easily produced, and inside the tunnels the photons that where created would always have being submited to electromagnetism and other frequencies... I questioning, by asking, if there is one experiment that have ever observed the photons existence without have created them under controled situations nor submited to any kind of exitement of wavelenght of any sort...  Any scientific proof that confirms that the photon moving at the speed of the wavelenghts was "the photons" and also the reason why they desapear and reapear, and i'll drop it...
 I the conditions I'm asking for observation seems to be impossible, I can accept your word, I don't have problems with logic, but than we would accept the others too...
 This is not a trap, not even a assumtion, I don't take sides cause my technical knoledge is much inferior to the one of yours it's just sounds as a very reasonable question... how do we know what we have observed, if they dont hold any charges, have no shape, can't be splited, and enjoy keep desapearing and reapering?

[guest39538]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?

[guest39538]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Fine, you may have the right knoledge to anser, I also do accept that we have evidence for the existence of the photon, we even know the process and conditions that create them, but do we have proff that photons are really destroyed insted of simple became inert in the absence of wavelenght frequencies, such as the light? What I mean when a photon apear and desapear how do we know that it wasnt another photon activated by the same frequency that activated when passing or leting the first or original one behind?
 Of course photons can still be created, but in the absence of particles to do it, could be possible the wavelenght activate inactivated photons that where already there and diactivating them again as they passed?
 In a last question, and no one need to know the anwser only the possibility, could the photons that we think that we saw and observe as being created, never where created at all, only iradiated by the wavelengh of the frequency we created on that experiment?

''They'' do not have proof of a photon's existence, it is of the imagination and subjective.  Do not let yourself be subjected to this false testament that ''they'' have proof.

[PhysBang]

Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?

Can I play? The photoelectric effect!

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm

[guest39538]

Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?

Can I play? The photoelectric effect!

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm

Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.

What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?

[Ethos_]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?

Try this: www.becker-hickl.com/pdf/spcdetect1.pdf

But we all know you will only accept "proof" that satisfies your own personal and biased views so good luck Mr. Box. I doubt you will even read this document.

[guest39538]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 

Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?

Try this: www.becker-hickl.com/pdf/spcdetect1.pdf

Interesting , but again I see no concrete proof, if you are counting and make a device to count, the device creates the gaps in the count, i.e between 0 and 1 there is a gap, the gap ''you'' are making by counting.
You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.   
There is a big difference in .... and _  , something that is continuous.

[PhysBang]

Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.

What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?

Honestly, if that is your response, you are obviously not interested in science.

[guest39538]

Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.

What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?

Honestly, if that is your response, you are obviously not interested in science.

I am very interested in science what I am not interested in is make believe and subjective thinking. 

If you want to talk Photoelectric effect I have no problem switching to maths


K_max=(hf/S)/S  and do not think for minute I do not understand what that means,


p.s mods the maths thing is broke and upload attachments being faulty.


added - or in further explanation    hf/S delta Q/S=W   because heat expands things  added - and likewise charges


hf/S delta q delta Q/S=W  where q is charge and Q is heat and S is entropy and W is work and delta is change


but also hf is equal to A (area XY)


A(hf)/S

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists. 
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

''They'' do not have proof of a photon's existence, it is of the imagination and subjective.  Do not let yourself be subjected to this false testament that ''they'' have proof.

Here I'll have to disagree for a moment with you, is also confirmed the existence of the photon, when it is created using wavelength and electromagnetism finding particles with the right charge, the photon is indeed created, as a particle, my question is about what happened to the created photons, this since the beginning of universe and modern times, are they destroyed or is acceptable that they eventually loose moment as soon as the frequencies cease and than they stop and join the rest of the other photons that, in this scenario, could be all around, everything... That they exist I have little doubt about it, its hard to know because the experiments that they use to confirm particles create them using collisions and keep the particles momentum conserved using electromagnetic fields, witch is frequencies... And this second possibilities leads me to doubt if the photon without momentum or frequencies still being "a photon" or it is somehow absorbed by the whole, joining them, resting till there is frequency again.... Of course is not subjection is a plenty reasonable question despise the odds...

[Ethos_]

You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.   

Wrong....................Each individual photon is making the result and the honest scientist is "seeing" those results as evidence.

But alas Mr. Box, reasoning with you scientifically is a waste of time because you are not interested in experiment or the "results" of that experiment. You will believe what you only choose to believe. The true scientist acknowledges what the evidence shows him whether it fit in with his former view or not. The honest scientist will abandon former views when confronted with new evidence and the "dishonest scientist" will continue to hold to his flawed opinions even though those opinions have been shown to be in error.

Examine which kind of scientist you prefer to be Mr. Box, the honest variety or the dishonest one...................Good luck with that one as well!!

[guest39538]

You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.   

Wrong....................Each individual photon is making the result and the honest scientist is "seeing" those results as evidence.

But alas Mr. Box, reasoning with you scientifically is a waste of time because you are not interested in experiment or the "results" of that experiment. You will believe what you only choose to believe. The true scientist acknowledges what the evidence shows him whether it fit in with his former view or not. The honest scientist will abandon former views when confronted with new evidence and the "dishonest scientist" will continue to hold to his flawed opinions even though those opinions have been shown to be in error.

Examine which kind of scientist you prefer to be Mr. Box, the honest variety or the dishonest one...................Good luck with that one as well!!

You are not thinking objectively about what the devices actually are and what they are doing, the act of measuring a rate produces spacing gaps.  It is not I being dishonest with the bit of evidence we have that contradicts the visual of gin-clear objective.

Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.

Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?

Can I play? The photoelectric effect!

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm

[/quote]Can I play? The photoelectric effect!

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm[\quote]

Thanks for the information, just one serious, impartial question, I don't take sides, curiosity alone because I don't know...
 How did Einstein knows that "the photons" were traveling with the frequencies in the higher state, and not the frequencies traveling trough photons? Witch set the electrons free? The frequencies or the photons? By changing the frequencies the most important thing to set the electrons free was the higher wavelength frequency or the photons? Witch is the most relevant of both?

 You see I'm not questioning no one, it's just curiosity.

1-Photons traveling, (trough space-not know) at the speed of light with the wavelengths in a higher frequency set the electrons free?
2- Wavelengths traveling at their own speed traveling, trough space " infinity of inert self compressed photons" setting the electrons free?

Ignoring early new attachments that where based over this one black there than, how to know for sure if the photons after the frequencies (controlled observation) were really destroyed? Or they were already there since the beginning?
 In the slightly possibilities that this experiment have being miss interpreted, should I possible refer to photons as space fabric?

I'm presuming nothing is just that I always wondering the speed of the photons as being zero due the absence of mass, and that the frequencies that where caring information of the elements and colours, never occurred me this possibility cause I never have questioned a photon, it's that is just curious...

[Ethos_]

Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?

Frankly Mr. Box, how is any one able to answer a question without "thought" as in thinking about the issues of the question? As for the question: "do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?"

Firstly: The photon has a dual character, described as the wave/particle. And that duality, observed specifically in the double slit experiment, shows us how illusive the photon can be when trying to observe it's timely position in space.

Secondly: The very small dimensions of a particle photon would make it impossible for the naked eye to visualize.

Thirdly: The vast number and profusion of photons would make it impossible to distinguish individual photons from the maze of population impinging upon our eye ball. However, we can see this population of photons in varying strengths and wavelengths by comparing the light given off from a single match to that of looking directly at the noonday sun. Which is BTW something one should avoid.................
 
And fourthly: Considering the speed of light, 186,282 mile/sec, your eyesight would never be able to detect a single particle in flight. And it should also be noted that because light travels at this speed, one must ask, if not the photon, what is moving at this great velocity? Surely you're not going to tell us that light isn't traveling at c. Then again, it would not surprise me to hear any absurd remark coming from your lips.

Think of it like this Mr. Box. Have someone blow smoke into your face and attempt to pick out a single particle of smoke to view. Understanding that the photon is unimaginably very much smaller, one only sees  light similarly to you only seeing the cloud that was blown into your face.

[guest39538]

Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?

Frankly Mr. Box, how is any one able to answer a question without "thought" as in thinking about the issues of the question? As for the question: "do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?"

Firstly: The photon has a dual character, described as the wave/particle. And that duality, observed specifically in the double slit experiment, shows us how illusive the photon can be when trying to observe it's timely position in space.

Secondly: The very small dimensions of a particle photon would make it impossible for the naked eye to visualize.

Thirdly: The vast number and profusion of photons would make it impossible to distinguish individual photons from the maze of population impinging upon our eye ball. However, we can see this population of photons in varying strengths and wavelengths by comparing the light given off from a single math to that of looking directly at the noonday sun. Which is BTW something one should avoid.................
 
And fourthly: Considering the speed of light, 186,282 mile/sec, your eyesight would never be able to detect a single particle in flight. And it should also be noted that because light travels at this speed, one must ask, if not the photon, what is moving at this great velocity? Surely you're not going to tell us that light isn't traveling at c. Then again, it would not surprise me to hear any absurd remark coming from your lips.

Think of it like this Mr. Box. Have someone blow smoke into your face and attempt to pick out a single particle of smoke to view. Understanding that the photon is unimaginably very much smaller, one only sees  light similarly to you only seeing the cloud that was blown into your face.

Very slippery in your direct answer to the question!

From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?


And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation. 

[PhysBang]

Thanks for the information, just one serious, impartial question, I don't take sides, curiosity alone because I don't know...
 How did Einstein knows that "the photons" were traveling with the frequencies in the higher state, and not the frequencies traveling trough photons? Witch set the electrons free? The frequencies or the photons? By changing the frequencies the most important thing to set the electrons free was the higher wavelength frequency or the photons? Witch is the most relevant of both?

I think that Einstein did not know. However, he was able to demonstrate that the energy related to frequency was being delivered in discrete bits, so there was identifiable units of delivery.

The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.