[alancalverd]

It is interesting that I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle.

Funny, that. I make most of my living through that phenomenon: the use of x-rays to ionise stuff. Other people use lower energy photons to promote chemical reactions (vision) or excite electrons (radio).

I can find plenty of examples where the momentum of a particle is changed in an interaction with a photon.  This is despite the fact that a photon has no mass and therefore no momentum (yes I know this is controversial)

Delete "therefore" and study dimensional analysis to resolve the controversy that exists, uniquely, in your mind.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist and Alancalverd can I respectfully suggest that if you are not adding value to Naked Scientists that you desist from posting.

OK.
You first.
You are not adding any value to the website.
You are adding nonsense.
And that's why the likes so of Alan and I  keep correcting you.

Your current posts are way too negative and  often directed towards the person rather than the facts.

On the whole we are not being negative about the individual posting the words, but we are quite scathing of what is posted.
That's because it's wrong.

I always try to respect the person, stick with the facts

No, you do  not.
You say things like

I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle.

which is obviously nonsense.
That's essentially the only thing that photons do.

Alan pointed this out by explaining that many common events- such as vision, rely on photons transferring energy.
He might also have chosen the fact that the Sun's radiation warms the earth or that light makes plants grow.

include positive suggestions for change with the criticism.

Well, that's exactly what he did

Delete "therefore" and study dimensional analysis to resolve the controversy that exists, uniquely, in your mind.

So it's pretty clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Bored chemist]

I would think it is fairly obvious I know what photons do.

No.
Because you said this

I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle.

it is fairly obvious that you do not know what photons do.

I might be spouting nonsense but I expect to be told why, not just that my well thought out posts are nonsense.

We have repeatedly told you why your ideas make no sense.
For example
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg566209#msg566209

[mxplxxx (OP)]

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

Of course, I meant E=hf .

[Bored chemist]

Do you really think people would bother if I did not know heaps about the nature of a photon?

Roughly half the posts are from other posters
Perhaps people come here to look at what those people wrote, rather than you.
Perhaps they come to laugh at you.

You say you know about photons.
If that is true, why did you post this?

I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle.

Sorry to say, this is pretty much an example of what I was saying. It adds nothing to the topic, is totally negative and I feel you are attacking me.

LOL

[Bored chemist]

LOL

Get a life. Do not post answers to my posts in future. I cannot imagine why you are doing so if you are genuine about helping people on Naked Scientists.

Do you feel that quoting a blank section from me is helping people?
I think that it's helpful when people like Alan and me point out mistakes made by others.
And it's also helpful if people actually answer questions.

So, once again.

You say you know about photons.
If that is true, why did you post this?

I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle.

Also, re

There is little of this on the internet - in fact a search for "example of a photon interaction" yields no results.

Well I couldn't find any hits for "example of a football interaction" either.
But that's because it is a poorly constructed search string.
I would expect better from

a world class systems analyst

[Kryptid]

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

[mxplxxx (OP)]

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

Interesting, but I see no reference to measuring the energy of a photon there. BTW, the basic tenet of quantum physics is that photons interact with matter in whole units (quanta). The following quote from WIKI seems to indicate a photon can interact using part of its energy.

"Compton scattering, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon (which may be an X-ray or gamma ray photon)"

How would the photon's energy be measured? Guesswork I am thinking.

[Kryptid]

Interesting, but I see no reference to measuring the energy of a photon there. BTW, the basic tenet of quantum physics is that photons interact with matter in whole units (quanta).

It was just meant to be an example of a photon transferring energy to another particle.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Interesting, but I see no reference to measuring the energy of a photon there. BTW, the basic tenet of quantum physics is that photons interact with matter in whole units (quanta).

It was just meant to be an example of a photon transferring energy to another particle.

OK, thx. A good example.

[Bored chemist]

This is one reason I am here on this forum, Unfortunately, you (not Alan) often do so in a disrespectful manner. You seem to take pleasure in attempting to belittle people. Your replies are often not helpful at all. There is little in the way of friendliness or humor about your posts.

I am disrespectful of people who continue to waste time cluttering up the site with stuff that is known to be wrong.

What have these people done to earn any respect?
It's clear what they have done to lose it.

[Bored chemist]

Guesswork I am thinking.

Well that's a silly thing to think.
This whole thread has been telling you how to measure  energy of photons and yet you think people just guess.

In addition it is not helpful, it is not humorous and it is disrespectful.

Don't complain that I'm rude when you do exactly the same things I do.

[Bored chemist]

I cannot for the life of me imagine why you think this phrase means I don't know about photons.

regarding this phrase
"I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle."

It shows that you don't know about photons because transferring energy is the characteristic thing that photons do.

It's like saying " I can't find any evidence that cows give milk" and then claiming to know all about cows.


Using Google isn't the whole world of knowledge.
It only works if you use it correctly.

If you google
photon energy transfer
you find lots of information on the transfer of energy to particles by photons.

So you are blaming me for your inability to use Google.
Well, as I pointed out,



Well I couldn't find any hits for "example of a football interaction" either.
But that's because it is a poorly constructed search string.
I would expect better from

"a world class systems analyst"

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Given that, according to relativity, time varies according to the frame of reference it is measured in, and E=h/t, it is possible that it is not possible to measure energy without also (just?) measuring time.

Or is it possible that relativity could be simplified?

The Scaled Up/Down Universe

The universe consists of systems within systems within systems .... Each system is, in many respects, a scaled down version of its parent. Scaled down in the sense that all systems inherit a common base "System" type  (e.g. all systems contain a central object) and a parent system is a larger version of a child system. Each system experiences itself as "normal" i.e.  if you suddenly became a solar system, you would not notice anything different about the universe apart from the fact that you were now a solar system:).

What if the photons in each scaled up/down system vary in speed? For example, photon going from a solar system to the galaxy system might gain speed and a photon going from a solar system to the earth system might lose speed, and the speed of all photons at a particular level of the system hierarchy would be the same. In these cases, the differences in distance in the scaled up/down system combine with the new speed to make the speed of light a "perceived" constant.

Makes a lot of sense, satisfies Occam's Razor and we don't have to use the complexities of relativity to adjust time in different frames of reference (which now become equivalent of systems).

Evidence for this scaling theory comes from the fact that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light after the big bang. It may also have to do with energy "shifts" (e.g. red shift) which seem to contradict quantum theory.

ps it is likely each system will have a boundary and somehow or other the boundary contains energy. A photon scaling down will lose energy to the boundary and a photon scaling up will gain energy from the boundary, thus satisfying the conservation of energy requirement.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Backing up my previous post, it would seem from the latest experiments that the speed of light is not a constant? Where does this leave Relativity? Physics seems to be getting more and more flexible ... rapidly.

https://scienceblog.com/507094/ucf-researchers-develop-way-to-control-speed-of-light-send-it-backward/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Physics has done itself a disservice when it comes to measuring anything. By concentrating on single objects rather than the makeup of objects, it seems to me an opportunity to understand how reality works was missed.

In the case of a photon, it needs to be realised that the full state of a photon is influenced by the systems that make up the system that a photon currently belongs to. For example, a photon that has been emitted by an electron on earth is currently part of (at least) the earth system, the solar system, the galaxy, a galactic cluster and the universe itself. Its total momentum will be influenced by the momenta gained in each of these systems.

Changes in the momentum of any of these systems will affect the current momentum of the photon; possibly leading to the Heisenberg uncertainty of the current photon momentum and/or position?

Similarly, if the photon were not an elementary particle, its current momentum would be influenced by the makeup of its sub-systems. Basically, the state of any system is determined by the states of all systems that comprise the branch of the universe that it belongs to.

Actually, I just realised a photon is not affected by gravity so its momentum will not be changed by revolving systems . I was going to withdraw the post but think there is much in it that is useful.

[Bored chemist]

Backing up my previous post, it would seem from the latest experiments that the speed of light is not a constant? Where does this leave Relativity?

Relativity is just fine.
Thanks for asking.
What you seem to not understand is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The speed of light in stuff is slower. In water the speed is about 3/4  of the speed in a  vacuum

Was there anything else you forgot to read/ didn't understand?

[Bored chemist]

Physics has done itself a disservice when it comes to measuring anything. By concentrating on single objects rather than the makeup of objects

In the very real sense that I can't measure the length of my garden without knowing what flowers are growing in it.
However, in a much more real sense, I can weigh myself each morning without knowing exactly what my chemical makeup is.
Had you not realised that?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There seems to be two basic types of energy in this universe, Static and Mobile. Static energy would be energy of an object that doesn't change, such as its Rest Mass. Mobile energy is energy that can move from object to object, such as a photon.

An electron that moves from one orbit to a higher orbit will have absorbed a photon of a particular frequency. Similarly an electron that moves from one orbit to a lower orbit will have emitted a photon of a particular frequency. I would program an electron as an electron system with an electron state machine at its centre and zero subsystems (if the electron were an atom this would contain electron systems), The state machine would contain a substate for each photon absorbed with its frequency a a property of the substate.  The overall state of the state machine is the electron state and would contain the total energy of the electron (as per the total of the proton states).

Electron System
    Electron (Central state machine)
        Electron State
            Photon 1 State
            Photon 2 State
            etc.
    Subsystems
         ... no subsystems

Whoops. This cannot be correct. A photon is the equivalent of an event in a computer system. It cannot be an object (i.e. it cannot have a persistent state).

No, this is ok. A photon (a boson) is the past state of a fermion. The big difference between bosons and fermions is that bosons contain a state that is fixed when they are created and fermions can vary their state.  The electron needs to record this past state somewhere in order to randomly emit a photon of the required frequency.

In this way an electron travels backward in time!!!

[Bored chemist]

There seems to be two basic types of energy in this universe,

It seems that way to you.
That may be because you have  not thought about it properly.
If you had you would consider, for example, a uranium atom.

Static energy would be energy of an object that doesn't change, such as its Rest Mass.

Well, the rest mass of a uranium atom is known to about 8 significant figures.

Mobile energy is energy that can move from object to object, such as a photon.

Energy from uranium atoms is transferred to nuclear submarines which move.

. I would program an electron as an electron system

How you choose to model it is not going to affect how real electrons behave.

A photon (a boson) is the past state of a fermion.

That makes no sense.

bosons contain a state that is fixed when they are created

Helium atoms are bosons.
They have plenty of different states and can move from one state to another.
So your idea is wrong.

" The electron needs to record this past state somewhere in order to randomly emit a photon of the required frequency. "
Does a ball at the top of a hill need to "record" its potential energy to roll down it?
That's just misuse of the word.

In this way an electron travels backward in time!!!

Even without the previous errors, that's a non sequitur