[alancalverd]

That means that facing another direction, or changing position, doesn’t change the measurement of some object’s energy; but changing your velocity does.

I think the light is dawning. The Pound-Rebka experiment is worth studying.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems to me that to measure the energy of a photon you have to be moving at the speed of light. According to relativity, a photon will perceive the universe as a mass of stationary bosons oscillating around fixed points according to their composite electromagnetic waves (interesting! we may live in two same-space interacting universes, one inhabited by bosons and one by fermions). So, somehow or other send a photon to measure another photon.

It seems, given that a photon cannot detected/measured until it is observed, that photons (and most likely all bosons) exist as a constantly evolving probability wave (or waves?) until they are observed. This effectively means that a particular photon is duplicated in all places in the universe where is can possibly currently exist! And that all duplicates are destroyed when an observation is made of any one of them. Or that a photon NEVER actually exists in reality!!! Mind-boggling stuff, but so necessary for reality to work the way it does. It is also interesting to note that a photon can only be observed by one particle before being destroyed meaning there is probably a limit to the amount of intelligent life the universe can support, or that intelligence cannot happen until a certain mass of particles is reached.

It also means that we can probably interact with any photon in the universe that is observable from our current location with ultra-interesting possibilities - if only we knew how (maybe via quantum entanglement?)!

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A photon cannot be measured because it never actually exists in reality.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A photon cannot be measured because it never actually exists in reality.

We theorize that particle p1 loses energy e and at the same time as this happens a probability wave  is generated. We do not know the wave function of this wave but we theorize that the wave evolves in time until a point in the wave is "observed" by particle p2. We do not know exactly what observing entails but we theorize that when the observation is done the wave "collapses" and particle p2 immediately absorbs energy e.

There is not photon in this description. No photon has ever been detected or directly measured.

[Bored chemist]

basically, System = structure, Wave = position, Particle = state

A photon cannot be measured because it never actually exists in reality.

And, when you can provide extraordinary evidence for those extraordinary claims, we can make progress.
Until you can back up those ideas you might as well stop posting here.

[alancalverd]

It would seem this must happen in a certain time to satisfy the power/conservation of energy aspects of the transfer.

power is not conserved.

I've often suggested that we should teach quantum physics much earlier in the syllabus so people don't make the mistake of thinking that it is just continuum classical physics on a small scale, but it is equally important that people understand a few of the known laws of classical physics - or at least speak the same language as scientists.

[alancalverd]

It seems, given that a photon cannot detected/measured until it is observed, that photons (and most likely all bosons) exist as a constantly evolving probability wave (or waves?) until they are observed. This effectively means that a particular photon is duplicated in all places in the universe where is can possibly currently exist!

This contradicts the inverse square law which is an everyday observation.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

power is not conserved.

What happens to power then? There seems to be much controversy about this in the physics community.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Superposition_does_not_conserve_energy

But ideally, assume we have two wave sources , each give a wave with fixed power 0.5E^2, so the total power get out of the "combined" source should be twice of that value. However, Eans=2E, power form Eans is not the same as the power generated from the source. Problem remains.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems, given that a photon cannot detected/measured until it is observed, that photons (and most likely all bosons) exist as a constantly evolving probability wave (or waves?) until they are observed. This effectively means that a particular photon is duplicated in all places in the universe where is can possibly currently exist!

This contradicts the inverse square law which is an everyday observation.

This is standard physics teaching as far as I am aware.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

basically, System = structure, Wave = position, Particle = state

Just an observation. Nothing extraordinary about it I would have thought. ps System is everything except elementary particles including the universe itself.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

power is not conserved.

Basically, according to E=h/t a certain amount of energy corresponds to a certain amount of time. But, as far as I can see,  we cannot change E, we can only move it about so E/t is conserved. No idea how a red etc. shifts occurs given E is a quantum of energy and can only be altered in quantized amounts (if at all).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There are two mathematical models of a photon, neither of which "is" a photon.

Pardon? Tell me more.

Where can I find a description of these models? Where can I find  a description of the modern quantum physics (i.e. post wave/particle duality)? Is E=hf classical or quantum or both?

[Bored chemist]

basically, System = structure, Wave = position, Particle = state

Just an observation. Nothing extraordinary about it I would have thought. ps System is everything except elementary particles including the universe itself.

It is clearly nonsense.
A wave, necessarily has no single position.
Particles have many states.
And you haven't defined "structure" well enough to say what that bit means.

[Bored chemist]

Basically, according to E=h/t a certain amount of energy corresponds to a certain amount of time.

You are ignoring the fact that I already explained why you are wrong.

You are still stupidly using t for two different things.

[Bored chemist]

Can you supply me a good reference to back up your statement that t in E=h/t has two different meanings? I certainly can't after a fairly long search.

Learn to read.

I did not say that " t in E=h/t has two different meanings".
I said that you were using "t" for two different things.
And I explained what they are.

One is the time period over which energy is transferred, and the other is the time between successive peaks in the em field of the photon.

And you are still muddling them.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You are still stupidly using t for two different things.

You are still stupidly using t for two different things.

If you can't be civil to seekers of wisdom I suggest you go elsewhere. Moderator, why do you allow this sort of  abuse.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2019 19:41:56
One is the time period over which energy is transferred, and the other is the time between successive peaks in the em field of the photon.
And you are still muddling them.

As explained with a reference in a recent post, energy is transferred in no time. The differences between classic physics and wave/particle quantum physics and modern quantum probability physics are not well explained by physicists who seem to either not know or are reluctant to divulge trade secrets or are incapable of lucid explanations! As a result I am certain there are vast numbers of people out there equally as clueless as me but maybe I am stupid in that I am attempting to get knowledge on a physics forum that seems to not be available.

[Bored chemist]

You are still stupidly using t for two different things.

You are still stupidly using t for two different things.

If you can't be civil to seekers of wisdom I suggest you go elsewhere. Moderator, why do you allow this sort of  abuse.

It is uncivil to continue to use arguments which you know are not valid.
Such an act is stupid.

If you don't want your stupid behaviour highlighted do not act stupidly.
Try acting in a civil manner instead.
Do not, for example, pretend that people who measure the energies of photons are either fools or liars.

[Bored chemist]

, energy is transferred in no time

Since it has to travel a finite distance, that would require an infinite velocity.
What carries the energy at this infinite velocity?
Are yo postulating some new superluminal particle- or have you just misunderstood things again?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It has been interesting. Time to move on.