Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #468982 > unrolled thread

How Big is s PHOTON ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:09 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 09:36 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:16 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 10:36 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:55 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:20 +0000
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 12:13 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 12:27 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 12:48 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 13:12 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 13:18 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 13:28 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 14:14 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-24 18:55 -0500
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:23 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 15:38 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:12 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-26 21:17 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-25 17:08 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-08-26 11:31 +1000
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 21:12 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 10:59 -0500
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 16:40 +0000
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 09:41 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:17 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:41 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:30 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:14 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-27 11:09 +0000
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 17:32 -0500
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 22:44 +0000
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:50 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:03 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:30 -0700
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:12 -0700
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 19:13 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:05 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 19:22 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:01 +0000
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-14 17:11 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-14 17:45 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-15 09:23 +0000
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 10:32 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 11:15 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 13:12 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 14:07 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 14:45 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 17:20 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 19:04 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:55 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:49 +0100
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 16:38 +0000
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 12:17 -0500
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Fattore Nzavecchia <avcir@valecw.ba> - 2018-08-31 18:22 +0000
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 14:11 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 14:29 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 14:52 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-26 10:19 +0000
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:32 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:28 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 22:03 +0100
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 00:03 +0200
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 15:08 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 15:23 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 00:28 +0200
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:45 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 21:32 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:25 +0200
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 11:19 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:30 +0200
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 14:18 -0700
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:59 +0200
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-30 10:14 -0700
                        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 13:25 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 15:19 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 04:24 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 20:34 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 08:51 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:51 +0200
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:50 +0200
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 12:36 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:02 +0200
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:38 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 14:18 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:38 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:04 +0200
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:28 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:46 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 19:30 -0700
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:43 +0200
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 20:08 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 16:26 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-30 15:27 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 16:26 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 01:31 +0200
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-31 10:46 -0500
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 14:07 +0200
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 14:14 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-01 23:52 -0500
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-02 14:30 +0200
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:37 +0000
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iuoienv.vu> - 2018-09-02 14:22 +0000
                        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-04 10:00 -0500
                          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 15:13 +0000
                            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 17:50 -0700
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-04 09:59 -0500
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 15:15 +0000
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-04 23:16 +0200
                        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 23:03 +0000
                        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-04 21:22 -0500
                          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 20:20 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:59 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-01 08:54 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:09 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iufienv.vu> - 2018-09-01 17:45 +0000
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Jeanclaude Erald <urdu@iufienv.vu> - 2018-09-01 17:44 +0000
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 15:16 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 15:15 -0700

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#469708

Keith Stein wrote:
> On 29/08/2018 04:34, consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength. The wavelength is arbitray. We do not know what the velocity of a photon is. Only thing we know is that light is
>> composed of particles and the color of light appears to determine the energy but we really do not know that for certain since we have no real mechanism that
>> explains how the different colors of light produce different photoelectron kinetic energies but this is just mush much much to advance for any of you.
> 
> I'm not sure that answers my question "How Big is a PHOTON ?", but 
> thanks for sharing eh!

Blind leading the blind.

“Who is the greater fool?  The fool or the fool that follows him?”

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469706

consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.

Nonsense.  It does.

> The wavelength is arbitray.

Nonsense (and gibberish).

> We do not know what the velocity of a photon is.

Nonsense; we do.  The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.

> Only thing we know is that light is composed of particles

Nonsense.  That is only one possible description.  The other is that light
is an electromagnetic wave.

> and the color of light appears to determine the energy

Nonsense; you have it backwards.

> but we really do not know that for certain

Nonsense; we do.  The visual system is VERY WELL researched:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system>

> since we have no real mechanism that explains how the different colors of light produce different photoelectron kinetic energies

Nonsense; we do.  Since the photon has mass zero (m = 0), its kinetic energy
T is equal to its total energy E (in coordinates where its potential energy
U is zero):

  E         = E₀ + T (+ U)
  E²        = m²c⁴ + p²c²
  p         = γ m v
  p(v = 0)  = 0
  E₀        = E(v = 0) = E(p = 0) = m c²
  E₀(m = 0) = 0
  E(m = 0)  = 0 + T = T = p c = ℎ f. ∎

> but this is just mush much much to advance for any of you.

  E = p c = h∕λ c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f

is not exactly rocket science.  My ten-year old nephew could calculate that
if I told him

  p = ℎ∕λ

and

  c = λ f

first.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469757

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> > First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> 
> Nonsense.  It does.
> 

A photon is an isolated or collapsed component 
of a lightwave that has a frequency and wavelength.

Waves have frequency and wavelength, 
particles have position and momentum.

Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
(interaction) besides are features of these 
sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469761

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel.

>> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
>>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
>> Nonsense.  It does.
> 
> A photon is an isolated or collapsed component 
> of a lightwave […]

NO, it is NOT.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>

> Waves have frequency and wavelength, 
> particles have position and momentum.

And yet the magnitude of the momentum of a photon is EXACTLY p = ℎ∕λ, and
the energy of that photon is EXACTLY E = p c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f.  f is then
called the frequency of that photon and λ is called the wavelength of that
photon.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties>

> Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
> (interaction) besides are features of these 
> sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).

Word salad.  You STILL have no clue what you are talking about.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469767

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel.
> 
> >> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> >> Nonsense.  It does.
> > 
> > A photon is an isolated or collapsed component 
> > of a lightwave […]
> 
> NO, it is NOT.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>
> 
> > Waves have frequency and wavelength, 
> > particles have position and momentum.
> 
> And yet the magnitude of the momentum of a photon is EXACTLY p = ℎ∕λ, and
> the energy of that photon is EXACTLY E = p c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f.  f is then
> called the frequency of that photon and λ is called the wavelength of that
> photon.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties>
> 
> > Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
> > (interaction) besides are features of these 
> > sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
> 
> Word salad.  You STILL have no clue what you are talking about.
> 

Examples (of confirming what I said) as via Google's first page of results:

http://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/
https://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever/
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

So, if that was "word salad", here's a ton of it for your plate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469774

Light is an exception to wave particle duality.
There is no particle in its wave.

When Einstein said no to his Nobel Photon in 1937
the world of science since then hasn't wanted to talk.

Einstein's science became more objective.
He called his new light without particle a "spherical
wavelet."

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469795

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 2:18:33 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Light is an exception to wave particle duality.
> There is no particle in its wave.
> 
> When Einstein said no to his Nobel Photon in 1937
> the world of science since then hasn't wanted to talk.
> 
> Einstein's science became more objective.
> He called his new light without particle a "spherical
> wavelet."
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

The neutrino is the reverse non duality principle complementary to
light. It has no wave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469811

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Light is an exception to wave particle duality.
> There is no particle in its wave.

Once again you have it completely backwards.

Light is the textbook example of wave–particle duality, as evident in the
photoelectric effect (explained by Einstein in 1905 using Planck’s photon
hypothesis of 1900).

That spawned the field of quantum mechanics and the realization that all
matter particles have a wave nature, too (starting with the de Broglie
hypothesis).

> When Einstein said no to his Nobel Photon in 1937

He did not.  (And nobody but you calls his receiving the Nobel Prize in
Physics 1921 for the explanation of the photoelectric effect [as described
above] “Nobel Photon”.)

> the world of science since then hasn't wanted to talk.
> 
> Einstein's science became more objective.

You are delusional.

> He called his new light without particle a "spherical
> wavelet."

Cite evidence.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469778

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:38:39 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > 
> > Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel.
> > 
> > >> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> > >> Nonsense.  It does.
> > > 
> > > A photon is an isolated or collapsed component 
> > > of a lightwave […]
> > 
> > NO, it is NOT.
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon>
> > 
> > > Waves have frequency and wavelength, 
> > > particles have position and momentum.
> > 
> > And yet the magnitude of the momentum of a photon is EXACTLY p = ℎ∕λ, and
> > the energy of that photon is EXACTLY E = p c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f.  f is then
> > called the frequency of that photon and λ is called the wavelength of that
> > photon.
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties>
> > 
> > > Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
> > > (interaction) besides are features of these 
> > > sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
> > 
> > Word salad.  You STILL have no clue what you are talking about.
> > 
> 
> Examples (of confirming what I said) as via Google's first page of results:
> 
> http://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/
> https://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever/
> https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
> 
> So, if that was "word salad", here's a ton of it for your plate.


Mr. Lahn, please understand that I do not discount your 
opinion, and consider it quite usual and correct, and that 
I quite strongly hold usual very fundamental scientific 
opinions.

These aren't necessarily conventional or non-controversial 
opinions, just very fundamental (and strongly establishable 
as correct).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469808

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel.

>>> Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
>>> (interaction) besides are features of these 
>>> sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
>> Word salad.  You STILL have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Examples (of confirming what I said) as via Google's first page of results:
> 
> http://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/
> https://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever/
> https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
> 
> So, if that was "word salad", here's a ton of it for your plate.

What you said was nonsense, by contrast to what you cited.

You must be dyslexic.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469815

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 6:46:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel.
> 
> >>> Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
> >>> (interaction) besides are features of these 
> >>> sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
> >> Word salad.  You STILL have no clue what you are talking about.
> > 
> > Examples (of confirming what I said) as via Google's first page of results:
> > 
> > http://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/
> > https://www.iflscience.com/physics/researchers-image-wave-particle-duality-light-first-time-ever/
> > https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
> > 
> > So, if that was "word salad", here's a ton of it for your plate.
> 
> What you said was nonsense, by contrast to what you cited.
> 
> You must be dyslexic.
> 

"The photon is a type of elementary particle, 
the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
including electromagnetic radiation such as light, ...".
  -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

The Wiki starts there exactly about the particle-wave
duality and particles have position and momentum (and 
other fundamental characteristics) and waves have frequency 
and wavelength (and are quite usually regular/sinusoidal 
and periodic).

Seems you should take it up with them.

No, Lahn, I don't qualify for disability.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469817

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 6:46:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel!

>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
>>>>> (interaction) besides are features of these 
>>>>> sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
>> […]
>> What you said was nonsense, by contrast to what you cited.
>>
>> You must be dyslexic.
> 
> "The photon is a type of elementary particle, 
> the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
> including electromagnetic radiation such as light, ...".
>   -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
> 
> The Wiki starts there exactly about the particle-wave
> duality and particles have position and momentum (and 
> other fundamental characteristics) and waves have frequency 
> and wavelength (and are quite usually regular/sinusoidal 
> and periodic).
> 
> Seems you should take it up with them.

You COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND what is said there.

Besides, it is a WIKI.

> No, Lahn, I don't qualify for disability.

You certainly qualify for mental disability.  For example, I already had to
ask you THREE TIMES (OR MORE) to stop posting attribution novels, and you
keep doing it.  Like Forrest Gump purportedly said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

But it is the nature of mental disability that people who have it do not
realize that they do.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469819

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:43:05 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 6:46:17 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Attribution LINE, NOT attribution novel!
> 
> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 1:02:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>> Wave-particle duality and in the measurement 
> >>>>> (interaction) besides are features of these 
> >>>>> sub-atomic systems (i.e., that's quantum mechanics).
> >> […]
> >> What you said was nonsense, by contrast to what you cited.
> >>
> >> You must be dyslexic.
> > 
> > "The photon is a type of elementary particle, 
> > the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
> > including electromagnetic radiation such as light, ...".
> >   -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
> > 
> > The Wiki starts there exactly about the particle-wave
> > duality and particles have position and momentum (and 
> > other fundamental characteristics) and waves have frequency 
> > and wavelength (and are quite usually regular/sinusoidal 
> > and periodic).
> > 
> > Seems you should take it up with them.
> 
> You COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND what is said there.
> 
> Besides, it is a WIKI.
> 
> > No, Lahn, I don't qualify for disability.
> 
> You certainly qualify for mental disability.  For example, I already had to
> ask you THREE TIMES (OR MORE) to stop posting attribution novels, and you
> keep doing it.  Like Forrest Gump purportedly said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
> 
> But it is the nature of mental disability that people who have it do not
> realize that they do.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>
> 

No, that is a fallacy of the vicious circle,
loaded question, or leading term, or, 
"in the DSM, there's no 'sane'".

Or, "if Dunning-Kruger are such experts, 
they're wrong", i.e. presumption of guilt.
When someone uses Dunning-Kruger wrong, 
it makes Dunning-Kruger wrong.

Otherwise you might nit-pick yourself, 
and while you're welcome to maintain a 
hygiene, it's not your place to pour 
(weak) lye on others except as mutual
(or parental).

Also it's "you can't fix stupid".

That kind of ad hominem attack is 
quite effective on un-critical thinkers.
With various passions of critical thinkers, 
some it enrages.


Anyways a photon is largely the event 
usually of measurement and it's part 
of particle-wave duality of light (and 
other EM) waves.

I don't know why you'd dispute that, 
nor why you'd take up fallacies, 
but that would be wrong.

"Disagreement by itself isn't cause for offence."
"Offense is."

Light:  particle and wave.  Photon:  particle of light's wave.

I hope you'd be interested in de Broglie-Bohm and 
various modern notions of the structure of photons.

Otherwise we're quite mostly all familiar with 
whatever "Wiki-level" advice you have about photons.

Well, good luck, a photon's about absorption and 
emission (photoelectric effect).

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

"Albert Einstein's mathematical description of how 
the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption 
of quanta of light was in one of his 1905 papers, 
named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the 
Production and Transformation of Light". This 
paper proposed the simple description of "light 
quanta", or photons, and showed how they explained 
such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. His 
simple explanation in terms of absorption of 
discrete quanta of light explained the features 
of the phenomenon and the characteristic frequency. "


"Quantum mechanics" writ large came about a bit after.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469940

On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> 
> Nonsense.  It does.

Hmmm. Photons have no INTRINSIC wavelength (which is what "have" means here). It 
simply is not possible to measure the wavelength of a single photon. You can 
measure the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam (consisting of myriad 
photons), but the value obtained depends on the inertial frame of the measuring 
instrument, so cannot be intrinsic to the light beam.

	[Do not interpret this as supporting consequently7990662 --
	 he/she writes a prodigious amount of nonsense.]

> The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.

It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon, or to even discuss 
it sensibly. Measuring the speed of a light beam in vacuum, using an instrument 
at rest in some inertial frame, one always obtains c.

> [... more claims that are marginally accurate and marginally wrong]
Photons are inherently quantum objects, and attempting to discuss "a photon" is 
nearly always wrong. Discuss light pulses and beams, and avoid the quantum 
complexities, which are usually irrelevant around here.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469948

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> >> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> >
> > Nonsense.  It does.
> 
> Hmmm. Photons have no INTRINSIC wavelength (which is what "have" means here). It
> simply is not possible to measure the wavelength of a single photon. You can
> measure the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam (consisting of myriad
> photons), but the value obtained depends on the inertial frame of the measuring
> instrument, so cannot be intrinsic to the light beam.
> 
>         [Do not interpret this as supporting consequently7990662 --
>          he/she writes a prodigious amount of nonsense.]
> 
> > The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.
> 
> It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon, or to even discuss
> it sensibly. Measuring the speed of a light beam in vacuum, using an instrument
> at rest in some inertial frame, one always obtains c.
> 
> > [... more claims that are marginally accurate and marginally wrong]
> Photons are inherently quantum objects, and attempting to discuss "a photon" is
> nearly always wrong. Discuss light pulses and beams, and avoid the quantum
> complexities, which are usually irrelevant around here.
> 
> Tom Roberts


photons have what is called...a quantum mass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469963

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 3:27:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.  It does.
> > 
> > Hmmm. Photons have no INTRINSIC wavelength (which is what "have" means here). It
> > simply is not possible to measure the wavelength of a single photon. You can
> > measure the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam (consisting of myriad
> > photons), but the value obtained depends on the inertial frame of the measuring
> > instrument, so cannot be intrinsic to the light beam.
> > 
> >         [Do not interpret this as supporting consequently7990662 --
> >          he/she writes a prodigious amount of nonsense.]
> > 
> > > The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.
> > 
> > It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon, or to even discuss
> > it sensibly. Measuring the speed of a light beam in vacuum, using an instrument
> > at rest in some inertial frame, one always obtains c.
> > 
> > > [... more claims that are marginally accurate and marginally wrong]
> > Photons are inherently quantum objects, and attempting to discuss "a photon" is
> > nearly always wrong. Discuss light pulses and beams, and avoid the quantum
> > complexities, which are usually irrelevant around here.
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> 
> photons have what is called...a quantum mass.

Light waves have what is called... energy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469965

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> consequently7990662@gmail.com wrote:
>>> First, a photon does not have a wavelength.
>> Nonsense.  It does.
> 
> Hmmm. Photons have no INTRINSIC wavelength (which is what "have" means here). It 
> simply is not possible to measure the wavelength of a single photon. You can 
> measure the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam (consisting of myriad 
> photons), but the value obtained depends on the inertial frame of the measuring 
> instrument, so cannot be intrinsic to the light beam.
> 
> 	[Do not interpret this as supporting consequently7990662 --
> 	 he/she writes a prodigious amount of nonsense.]
> 
>> The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.
> 
> It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon,
                                               ^^^^^^
First of all, nobody has claimed otherwise.

Second, why would it not be possible?

Third, even if there were a good (quantum-mechanical?) reason why it would
not be possible, I do not see a reason why an average value could not be
obtained.

> or to even discuss it sensibly.

IBTD.  Among other things, it follows from the energy–momentum relation in
combination with the standard-model assumption that the photon mass is zero:

  v        = c √(1 − m²c⁴∕E²)
  v(m = 0) = c.

Also, there is a paper by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration on gravitational
waves (I do not have it at hand, but I can provide the reference if
necessary) that discusses the speed of gravitational waves based on the mass
of the hypothetical graviton (which might not be zero, so the speed of
gravitational waves could be less than c).  So I think that I am in very
good company there.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470007

On 8/30/18 6:31 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.
>>
>> It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon,
>                                                 ^^^^^^
> First of all, nobody has claimed otherwise.

You did, by claiming a particular speed for "a photon".

> Second, why would it not be possible?

To measure the speed of something, it must be observed twice, over a measured 
distance and time; its speed is then distance/time. But a given photon can only 
be observed ONCE, because observation destroys it.

	Do not think that its emission could be used, as one cannot
	know the emission time of a given photon.

> Third, even if there were a good (quantum-mechanical?) reason why it would
> not be possible, I do not see a reason why an average value could not be
> obtained.

Sure. As I said, one can easily measure the speed of a LIGHT PULSE (comprised of 
myriad photons). In essence one observes a fraction of its photons here, and a 
different fraction there. But that does not give the speed of a single photon 
(no photon is involved in both observations).

> Also, there is a paper by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration on gravitational
> waves (I do not have it at hand, but I can provide the reference if
> necessary) that discusses the speed of gravitational waves based on the mass
> of the hypothetical graviton (which might not be zero, so the speed of
> gravitational waves could be less than c). 

Sure, HYPOTHETICAL theories can yield different results. There is no theory 
TODAY that includes gravitons, there are just rather vague hopes and dreams of a 
theory. Today, GR is the only theory we have that models gravitational waves, 
and in GR the speed of gravitational waves is c (relative to any 
locally-inertial frame).

As I keep saying, photons are inherently quantum objects, and their quantum 
properties are QUITE DIFFERENT from anything with which you are familiar. So 
don't attempt to discuss photons, discuss light pulses and beams instead -- 
quantum properties just confuse the issues of interest around here.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470124

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/30/18 6:31 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 8/29/18 11:50 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> The speed of a photon is the speed of light in vacuum.
>>> It is not possible to measure the speed of a single photon,
>>                                                 ^^^^^^
>> First of all, nobody has claimed otherwise.
> 
> You did, by claiming a particular speed for "a photon".

I was speaking generally, if you care to notice.

>> Second, why would it not be possible?
> 
> To measure the speed of something, it must be observed twice, over a measured 
> distance and time; its speed is then distance/time. But a given photon can only 
> be observed ONCE, because observation destroys it.

Fair enough.

>> Third, even if there were a good (quantum-mechanical?) reason why it would
>> not be possible, I do not see a reason why an average value could not be
>> obtained.
> 
> Sure. As I said, one can easily measure the speed of a LIGHT PULSE (comprised of 
> myriad photons). In essence one observes a fraction of its photons here, and a 
> different fraction there. But that does not give the speed of a single photon 

On average it does.

> (no photon is involved in both observations).

Nonsense.

>> Also, there is a paper by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration on gravitational
>> waves […] that discusses the speed of gravitational waves based on the mass
>> of the hypothetical graviton (which might not be zero, so the speed of
>> gravitational waves could be less than c). 
> 
> Sure, HYPOTHETICAL theories can yield different results. There is no theory 
> TODAY that includes gravitons, there are just rather vague hopes and dreams of a 
> theory. Today, GR is the only theory we have that models gravitational waves, 
> and in GR the speed of gravitational waves is c (relative to any 
> locally-inertial frame).

Trimming the quote too soon, not reading my posting carefully enough,
or both, you have missed the point.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#470125

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/30/18 6:31 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Also, there is a paper by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration on gravitational
>> waves (I do not have it at hand, but I can provide the reference if
>> necessary) that discusses the speed of gravitational waves based on the mass
>> of the hypothetical graviton (which might not be zero, so the speed of
>> gravitational waves could be less than c). 
> 
> Sure, HYPOTHETICAL theories can yield different results. […]There is no theory 
> TODAY that includes gravitons, there are just rather vague hopes and dreams of a 
> theory. Today, GR is the only theory we have that models gravitational waves, 
> and in GR the speed of gravitational waves is c (relative to any 
> locally-inertial frame).

JFTR, all theories are hypotheses.  But I did not and do not even need to
invoke untested theories (which is what you might have meant instead):
> As I keep saying, photons are inherently quantum objects, and their quantum 
> properties are QUITE DIFFERENT from anything with which you are familiar. So 
> don't attempt to discuss photons, discuss light pulses and beams instead -- 
> quantum properties just confuse the issues of interest around here.

Do you deny that from the energy–momentum relation follows that the 3-speed
of any particle is

  v = c √(1 – m²c⁴∕E²)

where c is the speed of light (in vacuum), m is the particle’s mass, and E
is its total energy?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web