[seeker3]

It isn't. The amount of lensing matches the mathematical predictions of a gravitational cause.

What math prediction? What math equation?

[seeker3]

If photon particle is real particle, to accelerate it to light speed takes energy, and a precise mechanism, and time. How come light accelerate from 0 to light speed instantly?

WHAT IS THE MECHANISM?

Photons don't accelerate from zero speed to light speed. That implies that they start off at zero speed when they first come into existence. They don't. They are moving at the speed of light as soon as they are created. So there is no acceleration.

Description is not explanation. What is the mechanism?

Quote from: seeker3 on Today at 07:46:18
So the Sun shooting out photons at every direction at light speed?

Yes.
What is the mechanism?
Quote from: seeker3 on Today at 07:46:18
Does Sun's gravity slow down photons that shooting away?

No, but it does weaken them so that they have less energy.
What is the mechanism?
Quote from: seeker3 on Today at 07:46:18
Why photons are not slowing down by time since gravity is constantly decelerating it?

Gravity doesn't decelerate light.
How black hole slow down light speed to zero?
Quote from: seeker3 on Today at 08:04:36
If gravity can attract light, slow down light, so very big mass can become black hole because light slow down to a stop?

No, black holes redshift light out of existence.
What is the mechanism?
Quote from: seeker3 on Today at 08:04:36
If that's true, half black hole mass star light speed should be 1/2 light speed?

Small Sun's light speed faster?

No, the speed of light doesn't depend on a star's mass.
If so, why black hole has no light?

[Bored chemist]

What is the mechanism of light?

Well, the classical version was sorted out by Maxwell in the 19th C.
The modern version requires an understanding of time dependent perturbation theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)
Did you not know that there is a well documented "mechanism"?

Once you have learned about them you can hope to tackle these.

How electrons emit photon? How photons travel in space at light speed? How photons slow down in air and water? How photons accelerate from water into air? How photons carry energy? What is energy?

[Bored chemist]

If photon particle is real particle, to accelerate it to light speed takes energy, and a precise mechanism, and time. How come light accelerate from 0 to light speed instantly?

That logical error is called the "no true Scotsman fallacy".

No, but it does weaken them so that they have less energy.
What is the mechanism?

General relativity

[seeker3]

Einstein won Nobel for photoelectric effect, co-invented photon concept.

Why he still searching for the answer for 50 years? What are light quanta?

Did he find it?

Did you?

[Kryptid]

What is the mechanism of light? How electrons emit photon? How photons travel in space at light speed? How photons slow down in air and water? How photons accelerate from water into air? How photons carry energy? What is energy?

I already answered those questions. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them wrong.

What math prediction? What math equation?

The equation is at the beginning of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing_formalism

Description is not explanation. What is the mechanism?

There is no mechanism because what you are claiming to happen simply does not happen.

What is the mechanism?

Incandescence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence

What is the mechanism?

It's the same thing that causes a ball thrown into the air to lose energy: the gravitational force pulling on it causes it to lose energy.

How black hole slow down light speed to zero?

It doesn't.

What is the mechanism?

The same thing that I mentioned earlier about gravitational force pulling on objects to reduce their kinetic energy.

If so, why black hole has no light?

Because photons cannot get out of the event horizon. Space is literally warped in such a way that it cannot escape.

[seeker3]

If photons cannot get out, does black holes radiate heat?

If so, how?

If not, will black holes temperature raise up by time?

 

[Kryptid]

If photons cannot get out, does black holes radiate heat?

If so, how?

If not, will black holes temperature raise up by time?

They can't radiate it directly, but they can lose energy indirectly via Hawking radiation:

[esquire]

gluons and photons share similiar characteristic, they both are massless, charge carriers with a 1 spin.
so, why not adopt gluon methods to measure the photon? create a photon singlet by combining/dividing two spectral
photon signatures into a single zero spin spectral signature, where one photon spectral signature is n^2 and other photon spectral signature iis N^2-1. next  divide that result, by the sq rt of 2.

this should give you the photons capacity as a charge carrier. it elimiunates spin as a variable.

[alancalverd]

It is even harder to see how multiplying Action by frequency gives Energy (E).

It doesn't. Or at least it didn't. Planck simply

assumed that a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave

, so he wrote "assume E = hf......" from which he derived the shape of the black body spectrum, thus establishing both the principle of quantum electromagnetics and, by experiment, the fact that h is a universal constant.

Why not just do the energy times time multiplication and use h = energy. Far less complicated and it doesn't affect the end result.h as energy means that vastly more people can understand quantum physics.

Because stating that E = E  doesn't explain or predict anything. Which is fine if you are an aspiring politician, priest or philosopher, but physics is about explanation and prediction.

Few people, including I suspect, many physicists understand Action.

There's nothing to understand. However and whenever you measure E and f, it turns out that E is a constant times f, and that constant must have the dimensions of E/f,  joule-seconds. You could measure wavelength λ, and to nobody's surprise, E = hc/λ, same constant, same dimensions.

You cannot possibly "understand" the fact that my name is Alan, because it is a definition, not a derivation. It's just a definition of "that bloke" as distinct from "all the other blokes"  (though it's so common in the Midlands that in a previous occupation I was called "number five").   

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Because stating that E = E  doesn't explain or predict anything. Which is fine if you are an aspiring politician, priest or philosopher, but physics is about explanation and prediction.

Not E = E, E = ef where e is 6.62607004 × 10-34 joules, corresponding to the Action h. No diff to current formula except we  use h as energy, not action. Note current definition of h is joules times 1 second i.e. et joules = e. 

An Energy/Time graph using h = 6.6 and f = 3 follows. It indicates energy calculated using h is likely to be very inaccurate. Unless I have missed something (not beyond the realms of possibility). 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkkAzGDByUeBl9JPe3z3QpD5mHhgXQ

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There's nothing to understand.

Sure there is. I would think it is always better to understand how an equation is derived. Particularly in this case, it seems, as we cannot directly measure the energy of a photon. Can you state irrevocably that all all photon energies are a constant times their frequency. If so, I would love to hear your reasons. E via E=hf, it would seem, is only accurate for high frequency photons.

[Colin2B]

E via E=hf, it would seem, is only accurate for high frequency photons.

That’s incorrect. I suspect you are misinterpreting the Rayleigh–Jeans law which approximates Planck’s law at low frequencies, but is incorrect.

[alancalverd]

Not E = E, E = ef where e is 6.62607004 × 10-34 joules, corresponding to the Action h

If h is in joules and E is in  joules, then f has no dimension, which is nonsense. The dimensions of action are joule.sec. It isn't the most familiar quantity for most people but the Dirac - Feynman Principle of Least Action underpins a great deal of physics, so it is a useful concept, as ias the universal notion that frequency is 1/time.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

E via E=hf, it would seem, is only accurate for high frequency photons.

That’s incorrect. I suspect you are misinterpreting the Rayleigh–Jeans law which approximates Planck’s law at low frequencies, but is incorrect.

The graph in my post https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=3hq7t3ivb5tfmkbmvs9harokc4&topic=75960.msg570982#msg570982 clearly shows h is inaccurate at a frequency of 3. Have I done something wrong when developing the graph?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

the universal notion that frequency is 1/time.

Providing time is the time of one cycle of whatever frequency is describing. Frequency is cycles per second, so it follows it is 1 (second)/time.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If h is in joules and E is in  joules, then f has no dimension, which is nonsense.

Can you explain y our statement?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

E via E=hf, it would seem, is only accurate for high frequency photons.

That’s incorrect. I suspect you are misinterpreting the Rayleigh–Jeans law which approximates Planck’s law at low frequencies, but is incorrect.

How do you know it is incorrect? Has anyone ever measured the energy of an EM wave of frequency 3?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

E=hf is confusing because it is a shortened version of what is really happening in the calculation of E which takes place in two steps:

1. t = 1/f  where t is the time to complete one cycle of an EM wave and f is the cycles per second (frequency) of the EM wave
2. E = h/t where E is the energy of one cycle of an EM wave and h is Action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds) which is the same for all EM waves irrespective of their frequency.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

One last try at punching smoke. The ultraviolet catastrophe was solved by Planck introducing h. Otherwise the classical theory would still predict the energy approaching infinity at shorter wavelengths. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

If you still don't understand then there is no hope.

No hope for hordes of us then it would appear. I am far from alone. A heroic search for the meaning and derivation of h (Planck's constant) was in vain until I came across this post https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3qxkvf/how_did_planck_calculate_his_constant/.

The youtube channel viascience has a very very goo series on quantum mechanics. I recommend it very highly. see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUnoxJ5pho&index=2&list=PL193BC0532FE7B02C for the first video. It and the second explain exactly how Planck came up with quantisation, and in so doing his constant.

A simple explanation is this. Planck was studying light bulbs, and wanted to work out how to get the most light out of a bulb for the least power. To do this, he needed to model how energy moved about. He initially treated it as if energy moved continuously, rather than in little packets like quantum mechanics says.

He made the model in basically the same way you derive integration (area under a curve in calculus) from first principles. In calculus, to find the area under a continuous curve, we divide up the x axis into many small intervals of width h, then find h times the height of the curve at each interval on the x axis to get an area of a rectangle for each, then sum up the rectangles. We mathematically consider what would happen with smaller and smaller intervals (smaller h) to more and more closely approximate the area under the continuous curve, as opposed to the chunked up (quantised) approximate to the curve made out of rectangles. As you shrink h to zero, you approach the continuous case.

Planck modelled the movement of energy in a similar way - imagining that it moved about in small chunks of size h times the wavelength, and he mathematically imagined shrinking h to zero, to make the model represent energy moving continuously, not in chunks.

He applied this model to observed data, but it didn't match. What DID match, however, is if he neglected to shrink his value h to zero. The precise value you limit h to be in order to make it fit the observed data is what we now call Planck's constant - and it still has the symbol h.

It is my guess then that E in E=hf is only an approximation and the longer the wavelength, the more inaccurate E becomes.

While I am about it let me tentatively suggest based on the above that h is in fact Energy (E), not Action. h is actually the area of a rectangle with width t and height energy where energy is the energy being applied at an instant in time (so power maybe?), not total energy. Hooray, no more Action which is such a controversial unit in physics.

I suspect this is garbage. He talks about Planck integrating Energy/time curves but getting an incorrect result when the slices of the curve were shrunk to 0. But getting a correct result when the slices were set to an area h. But there would have been many slices of different areas.

So my conclusion that h is a slice of an Energy/Time curve is incorrect. I apologise profusely for wasting members time on this and the subsequent posts wondering if Action could be eliminated from E=hf.