Thinking about Photon.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by socratus »

Maxwell needed a mechanical model to understand interaction between
electro and magnetic fields. Later this mechanical model was thrown out.
Einstein needed different inertial reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . etc
to understand the relations between space and time. All these different inertial
reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . are secondary factors.
They are ‘ garbage for building blocks '
If we throw them out, then we have Lee Smolin's trouble:
" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /
===.
Attachments
Time.jpg
Time.jpg (9.22 KiB) Viewed 2486 times
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by Cerveny »

socratus wrote:Maxwell needed a mechanical model to understand interaction between
electro and magnetic fields. Later this mechanical model was thrown out.
Einstein needed different inertial reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . etc
to understand the relations between space and time. All these different inertial
reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . are secondary factors.
They are ‘ garbage for building blocks '
If we throw them out, then we have Lee Smolin's trouble:
" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /
===.
I'm sorry but I am to correct Lee Smolin a little:
".. One is the relativity of the measurement of the motion...."
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by socratus »

Cerveny wrote:
socratus wrote:Maxwell needed a mechanical model to understand interaction between
electro and magnetic fields. Later this mechanical model was thrown out.
Einstein needed different inertial reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . etc
to understand the relations between space and time. All these different inertial
reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . are secondary factors.
They are ‘ garbage for building blocks '
If we throw them out, then we have Lee Smolin's trouble:
" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /
===.
I'm sorry but I am to correct Lee Smolin a little:
".. One is the relativity of the measurement of the motion...."
. . . the relativity of the measurement of the motion...
=.
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is maximally.
( from our gravity point of view)
The same spped of light quanta can be minimal .... from vacuum point of view
and as a minimal speed it can be changed.
==..
tillingborn
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by tillingborn »

socratus wrote:. . . the relativity of the measurement of the motion...
=.
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is maximally.
( from our gravity point of view)
The same spped of light quanta can be minimal .... from vacuum point of view
and as a minimal speed it can be changed.
==..
What you have to remember (and I'm sure Lee Smolin has) is that the speed of light is only c in a vacuum, in any other medium it is less. In other words, photons appear to behave like massive particles, in that they seem to follow Newton's first law of motion; in a true vacuum there is no external force acting on it to influence its speed; any variation would therefore be due to the intrinsic qualities of photons. More to the point, Smolin appears to be arguing that we could have a coherent physics in which the (measured) speed of light is not the same for different observers. Maybe so, but there is no evidence that the world works like that. So why bother?
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by socratus »

tillingborn wrote:[

. . in a true vacuum there is no external force acting on it to influence its speed;
any variation would therefore be due to the intrinsic qualities of photons.
==..

===...
What are " the intrinsic qualities of photons. " ?

==
tillingborn
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by tillingborn »

socratus wrote:
tillingborn wrote:[

. . in a true vacuum there is no external force acting on it to influence its speed;
any variation would therefore be due to the intrinsic qualities of photons.
==..

===...
What are " the intrinsic qualities of photons. " ?

==
You'd have to ask Lee Smolin. I was making the point that in a true vacuum there is no matter or even fields to influence the passage of a photon. If the photon changes it's behaviour, the only cause can be something about the photon itself. On the other hand, if you are simply asking for my opinion, I think the simplest description of a photon, or any boson, is that they are waves in an expanding field that began with/is the Big Bang. Fermions, I suspect, are more like twists or knots.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by socratus »

tillingborn wrote:
socratus wrote:
tillingborn wrote:[

. . in a true vacuum there is no external force acting on it to influence its speed;
any variation would therefore be due to the intrinsic qualities of photons.
==..

===...
What are " the intrinsic qualities of photons. " ?

==
You'd have to ask Lee Smolin.
I was making the point that in a true vacuum there is no matter
or even fields to influence the passage of a photon.
If the photon changes it's behaviour, the only cause can be something about the photon itself.
On the other hand, if you are simply asking for my opinion,
I think the simplest description of a photon, or any boson,
is that they are waves in an expanding field that began with/is the Big Bang.
Fermions, I suspect, are more like twists or knots.
What is " a true vacuum " ?
A true vacuum is an absolute zero vacuum : T=0K.
According to the thermodynamics laws at a zero vacuum the quantum particles
cannot have geometrical form of " twists or knots " , or "loops" , or " toroidal ring "
. . We know the energy of quantum particles : E=h*f,
but we don't know their geometrical form . . . . .
. . . we use energy E=h*f . . . to an abstract particle . . . .
and in this way we are surprised how nature is paradoxical . . . .
==..
tillingborn
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by tillingborn »

socratus wrote:What is " a true vacuum " ?
Hypothetical.
socratus wrote:A true vacuum is an absolute zero vacuum : T=0K.
Necessarily.
socratus wrote:According to the thermodynamics laws at a zero vacuum the quantum particles
cannot have geometrical form of " twists or knots " , or "loops" , or " toroidal ring "
Really? Which bit of thermodynamics says so?
socratus wrote: . . We know the energy of quantum particles : E=h*f,
but we don't know their geometrical form . . . . .
Absolutely. I'm just guessing.
socratus wrote:. . . we use energy E=h*f . . . to an abstract particle . . . .
and in this way we are surprised how nature is paradoxical . . . .
==..
Well, it's mysterious, but I don't know what paradox you are referring to.
jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by jackles »

the individual photon is mass or planks constant across space/time .but we can not know where planks constant is in realation to spacetime at one in the same time.the absolute position is in nonlocality untill viewed by an observer.thats the way i understood it.?is it mass less i dont know.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by Ginkgo »

jackles wrote:the individual photon is mass or planks constant across space/time .but we can not know where planks constant is in realation to spacetime at one in the same time.the absolute position is in nonlocality untill viewed by an observer.thats the way i understood it.?is it mass less i dont know.
I think Planck's constant refers to how much energy is carried by a single particle with a certain range of frequency. A photon is massless because it is a carrier particle responsible for electromagnetism. It has energy and momentum, but no mass. Some people might want to say that a photon has mass because it has energy, but I would probably disagree with that.

I would also imagine that non locality and the role of the observer would be better explained using other aspects of quantum theory.
User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Thinking about Photon.

Post by socratus »

Inertia.
=.
Newtonian conception of *inertia* says nothing about energy.
The idea * Inertia & Energy * was solved by Einstein.
In 1905 Einstein wrote paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, the inertia depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
It means, that the inertia (constant speed of photon) depends on E=Mc^2.
===…
Israel Socratus
Post Reply