Notices
Results 1 to 63 of 63
Like Tree14Likes
  • 5 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By GiantEvil
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Neverfly

Thread: Photons? I am doubtful.

  1. #1 Photons? I am doubtful. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    While reading "The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of" and "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion" I found myself often drifting away in deep thought (to be fair, Astrophysics is my major, so these two books are far from my only experience with the subject matter).

    One of these thoughts kept coming back, stronger and stronger the more I read. Photons... are not real. I saw the equations detailing the quanta of energy delivered to an electron by light energy... I am fully aware of the photo-electric effect... and yet, I see no evidence in either of those for the necessity of a thing called a photon; no reason to believe that light has any particulate qualities.

    Here are my strongest assertions regarding the subject:

    If I have a pool of perfectly still water, and disturb it in such a way as to create a single ripple... traveling outward from the center it will carry with it, a specific amount of energy, a quanta of energy, if you will, which it may impart to any particulate that happens to be resting on the surface of the water. Now, this is not a perfect analogy, but it should make sense.

    Now imagine that I have an object which can emit a single "ripple" or pulse of light. A single wave. This light wave will expand outward from the source, and will interact with anything in it's path. 7 billion observers could be positioned in such a way that they all see this light simultaneously (although the simultaneity is really beside the point). Did I, with the briefest flicker of light, create 7 billion photons? And if we add in a few more viewers, or objects to interact with (say, electrons), we need yet more photons... so technically, with this "photonic" view of light, each light wave needs to carry with it an infinite amount of photons, each carrying a quanta of energy. Or... light is merely a wave, and that ripple can interact with everything in it's path with a finite amount of energy. The photo-electric effect is still valid, as each "ripple" interacts with electrons, the electrons become excited, and each ripple delivers a specific quanta of energy. But the "ripple" itself interacts with any electrons in it's path...

    The second assertion involves the finite speed of the propagation of light. Each pulse of light goes the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the emitter. This is seen with sound as well, which propagates as a wave through particles being compressed into one another. This is not seen, however, with anything of a particulate nature. Most notably, the relativistic jets seen coming from some stellar phenomena. When an object with relative motion projects another object at a specific velocity, the two velocities are added together. Not so with light. If light were particulate in nature, it would only propagate at the speed of light relative to the emitter.

    I have more to add, but it's late, so hopefully some stimulating conversation will evoke it from me in the future.

    In the meantime, please, convince me that light is a particle, or even partially a particle. Convince me that photons exist, because I am seriously doubting them.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    Now imagine that I have an object which can emit a single "ripple" or pulse of light. A single wave.
    can this actually be done though? wouldn't a "pulse" be composed of many photons? if this object only emits one photon then surely this would have a single direction and only one detector would detect it? isn't the "wave" just a probability wave and not at all like a ripple on a pond?

    these are just guesses on my part...


    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Welcome to the forum.

    Photons or the quantised "particle like" behaviour of light has been shown in countless experiments (just do a quick google search you even mention some of them yourself), the fact that you don't these experiments them as evidence of particle behaviour is probably due to a lack of understanding of the implications of the results. Your attempt to rationalise the photoelectric effect with wave behaviour does not work -- it cannot explain the work function or the fact that the energy of the electrons ejected depends on the wavelength of the light not the intensity.

    Also if light was not quantised none of the spectroscopy or laser work I have carried out throughout my career would have worked so I personally have done thousands of experiments that rely on photons "being real"...

    Heh, thanks, I've been looking around town for some people to talk this over with, to little avail... They all just seemed wowed by the very fact that I even read books like these in my spare time.

    I've done a decent amount of google searching and I have yet to find anything convincing, can you be a little more specific?

    I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that I lack understanding of the implications or results. I do believe that the photo-electric effect with the wave form does work... I am fully aware that it is the wavelength, and not the intensity which matters. I may be wrong but I am going to go for a stretch here: The wavelength in the wave form... that sounds really silly having to say that... is either going to be "short" (high energy) or "long" (low energy). Since light is going to hit the electron at only one speed that means the shorter wavelengths create a more violent "shake". Meanwhile intensity, as far as I can interpret would just be the relative number of waves hitting the area in short succession. Thus intensity would cause more electrons to be affected, but would not cause a single electron to be affected more. Seems to work perfectly for the wave to me.

    Can you be a little more specific on how spectroscopy requires light to be particulate in nature? As far as I remember, the spectral lines are created by interactions with electrons... so the above interaction in my previous paragraph should be the same concept (how a light wave interacts with an electron... not mentioning of course the valence shells and all that, since that's an effect of the interaction but not the interaction itself).

    Thanks for your input by they way, would love to get more in depth <3
    Last edited by Velexia; November 17th, 2013 at 01:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    Now imagine that I have an object which can emit a single "ripple" or pulse of light. A single wave.
    can this actually be done though? wouldn't a "pulse" be composed of many photons? if this object only emits one photon then surely this would have a single direction and only one detector would detect it? isn't the "wave" just a probability wave and not at all like a ripple on a pond?

    these are just guesses on my part...

    In my interpretation, a single photon cannot exist, since a photon cannot exist, light can only exist in these "ripples". So it would in this case go in all directions. Is there an experiment out there which proves that light can go in only a single direction (without being refocused like a laser), as a photon? I mean, surely we can set up a detector at the far end of a test area and it can detect a single quanta of energy being delivered to a single electron (in theory)... But does that necessarily mean that there was no other frame of reference which could have also detected the same wave of light? The test would have to have several detectors in "view" of the emitter, and then only excite one of them in this case.

    If there were such a test out there it would quickly set my mind to rest.

    Thanks for the input <3
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I do believe that the photo-electric effect with the wave form does work
    How can it? The energy density at any point in the wave is too small to have the effect it does on the electron. That has been calculated and is why Einstein's explanation was seen as such a breakthrough.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Is there an experiment out there which proves that light can go in only a single direction (without being refocused like a laser), as a photon? I mean, surely we can set up a detector at the far end of a test area and it can detect a single quanta of energy being delivered to a single electron (in theory)... But does that necessarily mean that there was no other frame of reference which could have also detected the same wave of light? The test would have to have several detectors in "view" of the emitter, and then only excite one of them in this case.

    If there were such a test out there it would quickly set my mind to rest.
    Doesn't the low intensity version of the double-slit experiment do just that?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I do believe that the photo-electric effect with the wave form does work
    How can it? The energy density at any point in the wave is too small to have the effect it does on the electron. That has been calculated and is why Einstein's explanation was seen as such a breakthrough.
    Hey, thanks for adding in. So far you've told me some things, but it isn't really enough to convince me, just reading a sentence of text. Can you show me why this should convince me, and also be a little more specific?

    I'm off to bed for now, but I'll be back later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Is there an experiment out there which proves that light can go in only a single direction (without being refocused like a laser), as a photon? I mean, surely we can set up a detector at the far end of a test area and it can detect a single quanta of energy being delivered to a single electron (in theory)... But does that necessarily mean that there was no other frame of reference which could have also detected the same wave of light? The test would have to have several detectors in "view" of the emitter, and then only excite one of them in this case.

    If there were such a test out there it would quickly set my mind to rest.
    Doesn't the low intensity version of the double-slit experiment do just that?
    I can't find anything on a low intensity version of the double-slit experiment, can you help me out here?

    (Off to bed, truly).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Can you show me why this should convince me, and also be a little more specific?
    I don't have the actual calculation with me, but I understand that it showed that at the low light intensity used, there would be a very significant delay required for the electron to accumulate enough energy to be ejected. However, the photoelectric effect shows no delay even with very low intensity light.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I can't find anything on a low intensity version of the double-slit experiment, can you help me out here?
    Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (I used the qualifier "low intensity" to distinguish the experiment used to describe quantum mechanical phenomena from Young's original experiment)
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post

    I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that I lack understanding of the implications or results. I do believe that the photo-electric effect with the wave form does work...
    The second part of this quote shows my suggestion is correct as KJW has pointed out in post #6.

    How does spectroscopy require light to be particulate/quantised? Have you ever wondered why spectral lines only appear at certain precise wavelengths/frequencies? That is because they correspond to the absorption/emission of a photon of the corresponding energy which is equal to the difference between two energy levels in the material under investigation. Do some reading about how atoms/matter absorb, emit and scatter EMR, you will see from a quick study that light being photons or particle like is the only way theoretical predictions agree with observed experimental results. If you disagree the onus is on you to provide the model (including maths) that can predict the observations just as well without photons.

    As for lasers, start here: Stimulated emission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    good luck trying to explain that without photons
    I'm sorry, but if you're going to behave like this (antagonistic), I don't think we are going to be able to have a rational discussion which will help anyone, and I am going to have to ask you to bow out.

    I see no reason why light, as a wave, cannot have a corresponding energy which is equal to the difference between two energy levels. I understand how electrons in atoms absorb and emit (EMR) light. I have not seen anything which suggests that light must be particulate in nature to predict or be in agreement with observation. The onus is not on me to prove that light is not a photon, just as the onus is not on me to disprove god to a religious person (lets not take that as a thread of discussion, please). I see no experimental evidence that requires a photon to exist, and while math is beautiful and can bring about a great many insights, it does not trump experimental evidence, nor does it describe reality by itself, it must be interpreted.

    I have my doubts that this link will show something that cannot be explained without photons, but I'll do my best to read it objectively. Maybe I will be wrong =) Thanks.

    That didn't even take any work, it was contained within the article itself... "Stimulated emission can also be described classically, however, without reference to either photons, or the quantum-mechanics of matter.[2]"

    The only reasoning I can see for even describing the light as having a direction is because of the nature in which it is emitted; just as a flashlight emits light in a "direction".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Can you show me why this should convince me, and also be a little more specific?
    I don't have the actual calculation with me, but I understand that it showed that at the low light intensity used, there would be a very significant delay required for the electron to accumulate enough energy to be ejected. However, the photoelectric effect shows no delay even with very low intensity light.
    This only makes perfect sense, since we've already discussed how the intensity of the light is not what matters... I suppose I should have been faster on the uptake there but I was extremely tired. So... I suppose I am not seeing how this is further relevance rather than restating what we've already been over. We know that intensity is not important, wavelength is.

    Edit: An additional thought comes to mind on the intensity of light regarding distance from the source, and such. For a light wave to carry the same amount of energy though an expanding spherical wave, it would have to decrease in intensity within the single wave itself. Again, seems to make perfect sense.
    Last edited by Velexia; November 17th, 2013 at 01:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    It wasn't intended to be antagonistic hence the smiley, but I agree if you won't accept answers from people who know what they are talking about on a subject you evidently don't there will be no rational discussion. I'll let someone else fix your misconceptions which judging by "I understand how electrons in atoms absorb and emit (EMR) light. I have not seen anything which suggests that light must be particulate in nature to predict or be in agreement with observation." are huge.
    That's an argument from authority, and, like Einstein, I have an inclination to distrust authority. Not to bring the baggage that people have with Einstein into this, I just admire the fellow.

    What I am looking for is direct, experimental evidence which can prove without a doubt, that light cannot be explained in any other way, than to have a particulate nature, and thus far, I have not seen anything other than a conviction that it must be so, because someone else said so.

    You can't start with the idea that it's a photon first, and then use the evidence to back it up, simply because it works just as well in a discrete case if you imagine it as a photon or a wave. You have to start with no assumption, and find a case where it can only be a particle. Good luck finding such a case. As I opened with, I read the original papers on the matter, and I saw nothing of the sort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I do believe that the photo-electric effect with the wave form does work
    How can it? The energy density at any point in the wave is too small to have the effect it does on the electron. That has been calculated and is why Einstein's explanation was seen as such a breakthrough.
    I'm not sure how you are conceptualizing the light wave, but when I imagine the light wave, I imagine that each "ripple" has within it, that "quanta" of energy, which is distributed along a discrete wavelength. The only difference I see between the idea of light as a wave, and the idea of light as a photon, is that light as a photon requires an infinite amount of particles to be created and silly explanations such as "it must be a boson" (so that any number of the particles can coexist in the same space), and light as a wave is smooth, and uncomplicated. The same effects are still seen, but it suddenly does not require extraneous complications such as being knighted a boson, being massless, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    And like other cranks you are comparing yourself to Einstein (or Galileo or some other authority, oh the irony). You have been given information about direct experimental evidence and chose to ignore it and insist it can be explained by wave-like EMR - it can't, end of. If you refuse to accept it that's your problem not mine. If you read the original papers as you claim and disagree light is quantised you either a) didn't understand them or b) are a dyed in the wool ass-hat. I'm now going to bow out of this thread as you requested as responding to the posts of people who choose to remain ignorant when information is provided is a waste of time.
    I'm serious about this. If you're going to act like this, you have no place here. I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. I'm saying "I have a distrust of authority. Einstein had a distrust of authority. It worked pretty well for him, and it works well for me." The only irony here is the irony you have created in your own mind. I chose to ignore nothing. Prove to me, that it can't (and also, stop it with the attitude), it's not a refusal of acceptance. I see zero proof. Show it to me, convince me, that's the entire point of the conversation. So far you've done nothing of the sort. You've attempted, and then thrown a tantrum like a child, attacking me as a person when I don't instantly conform to your expectations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    And like other cranks you are comparing yourself to Einstein (or Galileo or some other authority, oh the irony). You have been given information about direct experimental evidence and chose to ignore it and insist it can be explained by wave-like EMR - it can't, end of. If you refuse to accept it that's your problem not mine. If you read the original papers as you claim and disagree light is quantised you either a) didn't understand them or b) are a dyed in the wool ass-hat. I'm now going to bow out of this thread as you requested as responding to the posts of people who choose to remain ignorant when information is provided is a waste of time.
    I'm serious about this. If you're going to act like this, you have no place here. I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. I'm saying "I have a distrust of authority. Einstein had a distrust of authority. It worked pretty well for him, and it works well for me." The only irony here is the irony you have created in your own mind. I chose to ignore nothing. Prove to me, that it can't (and also, stop it with the attitude), it's not a refusal of acceptance. I see zero proof. Show it to me, convince me, that's the entire point of the conversation. So far you've done nothing of the sort. You've attempted, and then thrown a tantrum like a child, attacking me as a person when I don't instantly conform to your expectations.
    Calm down.

    You have a basic problem that is crank-like; that's what PhDemon is reacting to. Allow me to be specific: You proclaim a distrust of authority, while wrapping yourself in the protective cloak of an authority (Einstein). At the same time, you choose to trust an authority (yourself) while rejecting the results of experiment. That is a crackpot's attitude, and will provoke a strong reaction from denizens of a science forum.

    Now, if you are truly in search of knowledge, rather than confirmation bias, then consider -- seriously, this time -- the experimental result that KJW cited. The photoelectric effect is inconsistent with any wave-based model. If you disagree, then the burden is on you to present evidence to support your view. If you are unfamiliar with the photoelectric effect's remarkable features, here is a brief summary: Light can eject electrons from a metal, say, only if its wavelength is sufficiently short. No matter how intense a longer-wavelength source is, electrons don't get ejected. No matter how dim an appropriately short-wavelength source is, electrons do get ejected, with the number of electrons ejected proportional to intensity. Einstein's Nobel was awarded for his taking Planck's quantum hypothesis seriously and applying it to the problem of the photoelectric effect. His success at doing so -- quantitatively -- confirmed that light has a particle-like aspect.

    You can't reject an experimentally-supported result just because you don't like it. Scientific theories are always works in progress, of course, but you don't get to cherry-pick your way through models, and you don't get to impose your tastes on nature, nor complain that nature's behavior stresses your cognitive apparatus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Calm down.

    You have a basic problem that is crank-like; that's what PhDemon is reacting to. Allow me to be specific: You proclaim a distrust of authority, while wrapping yourself in the protective cloak of an authority (Einstein).
    That is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    At the same time, you choose to trust an authority (yourself)
    What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    while rejecting the results of experiment.
    Also false. I did not reject the results, I rejected the interpretation. On a sound logical basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    That is a crackpot's attitude, and will provoke a strong reaction from denizens of a science forum.

    Now, if you are truly in search of knowledge, rather than confirmation bias, then consider -- seriously, this time -- the experimental result that KJW cited.
    I'm going to have to simply ask you to reread what I have said, in that regard then.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The photoelectric effect is inconsistent with any wave-based model.
    Simply saying it proves nothing. Give me reasoning as to why this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    If you disagree, then the burden is on you to present evidence to support your view.
    I've given perfectly sound explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    If you are unfamiliar with the photoelectric effect's remarkable features,
    I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    here is a brief summary: Light can eject electrons from a metal, say, only if its wavelength is sufficiently short. No matter how intense a longer-wavelength source is, electrons don't get ejected. No matter how dim an appropriately short-wavelength source is, electrons do get ejected, with the number of electrons ejected proportional to intensity. Einstein's Nobel was awarded for his taking Planck's quantum hypothesis seriously and applying it to the problem of the photoelectric effect. His success at doing so -- quantitatively -- confirmed that light has a particle-like aspect.
    I agree with everything here, up until the part where it confirms a particle like aspect, because it does not. It confirms that a quanta of energy is absorbed, at sufficiently short wavelength, which makes perfect sense in a wave model, where that ripple, which propagates at the speed of light, must "shake" the electron violently enough to cause a change of state. It only makes perfect sense that a longer wavelength would have lesser ability in this regard because the "impulse" of the disturbance is spread out. If you don't understand what I am saying here, ask for clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You can't reject an experimentally-supported result
    I never rejected the result, I rejected the interpretation. Please give me ONE example where I rejected the result, because I promise you, I never did. Maybe you should read my text on it's own merit rather than lumping me into other people you may have debated this with (this is a guess, considering you are accusing me of things I never once did).

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    just because you don't like it. Scientific theories are always works in progress,
    I don't need a lesson on how scientific theories work.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    of course, but you don't get to cherry-pick your way through models, and you don't get to impose your tastes on nature, nor complain that nature's behavior stresses your cognitive apparatus.
    What?

    Why don't you slow down, and get on the same page with me here.

    I'm not here to defend myself from the dogmatic, arrogant, or holier than thou types (or WHATEVER one may profess themself to be). I am here to talk science. So either, talk science, or take your leave, because this is a fruitless, pointless waste of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Ok, let's put the photoelectric effect aside. What about the double-slit experiment?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    The double slit experiment shows that light is a wave. Through and through... And I've already discussed the "low-intensity" matter as well. So... what about it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    The double slit experiment shows that light is a wave. Through and through... And I've already discussed the "low-intensity" matter as well. So... what about it?
    That was with regards to the photoelectric effect. It has a different significance in the double-slit experiment. There we are considering the result of sending photons one at a time through the double-slit. Each photon is detected at a single point. The interference pattern only emerges by the accumulation of many photons.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    The double slit experiment shows that light is a wave. Through and through... And I've already discussed the "low-intensity" matter as well. So... what about it?
    That was with regards to the photoelectric effect. It has a different significance in the double-slit experiment. There we are considering the result of sending photons one at a time through the double-slit. Each photon is detected at a single point. The interference pattern only emerges by the accumulation of many photons.
    Can you link me to the particulars of the experiment, and the images which show this? Because I was certain that was in reference to electrons, not light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    This looks like the best place for me to look for my answers...

    " In 1923 Arthur Holly Compton showed that the wavelength shift seen when low intensity X-rays scattered from electrons (so called Compton scattering) could be explained by a particle-theory of X-rays, but not a wave theory."

    Maybe someone here can assist me with analyzing and discussing compton scattering and it's implications.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Can you link me to the particulars of the experiment, and the images which show this? Because I was certain that was in reference to electrons, not light.
    The original experiment was performed by G. Taylor in 1909. I don't have images of the experiment, but the original paper is: Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, "Interference Fringes with Feeble Light", Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 15, 114 (1909).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    "The effect is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon. Thomson scattering, the classical theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, cannot explain low intensity shifts in wavelength. (Classically, light of sufficient intensity for the electric field to accelerate a charged particle to a relativistic speed will cause radiation-pressure recoil and an associated Doppler shift of the scattered light,[2] but the effect would become arbitrarily small at sufficiently low light intensities regardless of wavelength.) Light must behave as if it consists of particles to explain the low-intensity Compton scattering. Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light can behave as a stream of particle-like objects (quanta) whose energy is proportional to the frequency."

    From the wikipedia article... It states that it cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon, but does not go into significant depth as to why, or I don't quite understand the explanation. Maybe someone can clarify it for me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Can you link me to the particulars of the experiment, and the images which show this? Because I was certain that was in reference to electrons, not light.
    The original experiment was performed by G. Taylor in 1909. I don't have images of the experiment, but the original paper is: Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, "Interference Fringes with Feeble Light", Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 15, 114 (1909).
    Thanks, I'll do my best to check it out (find it). Off to work for now, but I'll be back ~_^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    This looks like the best place for me to look for my answers...

    " In 1923 Arthur Holly Compton showed that the wavelength shift seen when low intensity X-rays scattered from electrons (so called Compton scattering) could be explained by a particle-theory of X-rays, but not a wave theory."

    Maybe someone here can assist me with analyzing and discussing compton scattering and it's implications.
    I was actually going to mention Compton scattering, but considered the double-slit experiment more definitive.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    One last thing before I head off, this is the part about Compton Scattering I am having trouble with:

    "The effect is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon. Thomson scattering, the classical theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, cannot explain low intensity shifts in wavelength. (Classically, light of sufficient intensity for the electric field to accelerate a charged particle to a relativistic speed will cause radiation-pressure recoil and an associated Doppler shift of the scattered light,[2] but the effect would become arbitrarily small at sufficiently low light intensities regardless of wavelength.) Light must behave as if it consists of particles to explain the low-intensity Compton scattering"

    How is this not explainable by a wave theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Comment: Velexia, tk421's observations, analysis and advice contained within post # 20 appear to me to be sound. You rejected all or most of them. That tends to affirm PhDemon's suspicion that you are displaying signs of crank behaviour. Science does not require that members here prove to you the validity of light particle theory because you are unable to correctly interpret experimental results. The knowledgeable members will, I am sure, continue to attempt to guide you to an understanding. I ask that you be careful as to how you react to posts that attempt to do so. You give me the impression that nothing is going to convince you. Statements such as "I'm not here to defend myself from the dogmatic, arrogant, or holier than thou types." implies that you have been attacked by such individuals, or individuals possessing that attitude. I see no evidence this has occurred. Therefore I am advising you to proceed with caution. Thank you for your attention.

    If you have a problem with this moderator intervention do not respond in this post. Instead, do one of the following:
    1) Report the post, to draw the attention of the moderator team to your concern.
    2) pm specific moderators.
    3) pm me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Perhaps the hubris of ignorance begs patience as opposed to a ban-hammer?
    Well, nonetheless, as an autodidactic exercise I'll attempt to provide my own explanation of why light must consist of photons and not exclusively be a wave. Yes light does display wave-like behaviors but is necessarily also particulate in nature.

    Let's begin with conservation of energy; Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If you doubt this law of nature, then you should probably just go join the Flat Earth Society.

    We will assume the Euclidean plane and your ripple on a pond analogy.
    There is a light source, an X wattage light bulb. (Initial point of disturbance in pond analogy, pebble dropped from height X.)
    In the case of our pond ripple, X is the total amount of energy in our ripple during it's total evolution.
    As the ripple evolves it's perimeter will increase proportional to it's radius.
    If the ripple in the pond should encounter an object (toy boat) some distance from its origin, then only a fraction of that ripple would encounter the toy boat, and only a fraction of the initial energy would be imparted to the boat.

    The color of visible light is a function of wave length, wave length is commensurate with energy. If a light wave were wholly wave like, then only a fraction of the initial energy would ever impinge on any detector, and red shift would be observed over common sight distances.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Perhaps the hubris of ignorance begs patience as opposed to a ban-hammer?
    Which is precisely why I have issued a moderator comment and not a moderator warning. I see nothing at all at this point that would warrant a suspension. I do see elements of a posting style that, historically, have led to much blood letting and an eventual ban. It is only proper that Velexia be made aware that their posting style has come to the attention of the mod-team. They may then choose to modify those elements of it that give concern, without in any way detracting from their core arguments, or expressions of skepticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Note the interrogative punctuation.
    Certainly patience is the more noble choice, but I am eager for something to fall on this joker. And beyond that I am indifferent.
    Yea, trying one thing first, before the other, is good.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Perhaps the hubris of ignorance begs patience as opposed to a ban-hammer?
    Well, nonetheless, as an autodidactic exercise I'll attempt to provide my own explanation of why light must consist of photons and not exclusively be a wave. Yes light does display wave-like behaviors but is necessarily also particulate in nature.

    Let's begin with conservation of energy; Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    If you doubt this law of nature, then you should probably just go join the Flat Earth Society.
    This is an unnecessary comment. No good can come from something like this. I ask that you refrain from adding things like this in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    We will assume the Euclidean plane and your ripple on a pond analogy.
    There is a light source, an X wattage light bulb. (Initial point of disturbance in pond analogy, pebble dropped from height X.)
    In the case of our pond ripple, X is the total amount of energy in our ripple during it's total evolution.
    As the ripple evolves it's perimeter will increase proportional to it's radius.
    If the ripple in the pond should encounter an object (toy boat) some distance from its origin, then only a fraction of that ripple would encounter the toy boat, and only a fraction of the initial energy would be imparted to the boat.

    The color of visible light is a function of wave length, wave length is commensurate with energy. If a light wave were wholly wave like, then only a fraction of the initial energy would ever impinge on any detector, and red shift would be observed over common sight distances.
    I don't follow the logic, that a redshift would be observed over common sight distances, which I interpret to mean visible to the naked eye from a casual non-relativistic distance, like say, 20 feet. The redshift would require the wavelength to be stretched considerably (relatively). How exactly, would this occur. I understand that the total energy of the wave must be conserved, but, this is a non-particulate thing we are dealing with here (in hypothesis / theory... I don't think it can qualify as a theory just yet). If we look at the idea of a three dimensional spherical wave... I don't see it as simply a spiral, like two perpendicular sine waves combined... but rather as an initial high "density" of disturbance in say, an electromagnetic field (or whatever) followed by a low "density" of disturbance (lower than the equilibrium). So, the electron, affected by this disturbance will be imparted with energy from it. Due to the speed of light, a shorter wavelength will cause a more violent disturbance, obviously. I suppose "work" must be done on the electron by the wave to affect the disturbance, and thus energy would be taken from the wave. But, since the amount of energy in even the tiniest amount of mass is absolutely huge... even a relatively large number of electrons would seem to have very little noticeable effect. This is, in fact something that could be empirically tested, to determine the soundness of the hypothesis. By the compton scattering it seems to me to be shown that even if the light does not have enough energy to alter the electron's (semi-)permanent state, it still interacts with it, and has a resulting affect on the light. The assumption is that this happens with light in a particulate nature, but there is no reason why it couldn't be a wave instead, experiencing the same effects (that I can see).

    So basically, this effect does happen whether you consider light a particle, or a wave, and it does not produce a red shift over common sight distances detectable without instruments with which to measure it precisely. I'm assuming that, because you see the photon interaction as a solitary thing, and that the affected photon is absorbed, that this has no bearing on it. But the compton scattering suggests otherwise, in the case of a "photon" that is not absorbed, but still interacts.

    So, from what I can tell, in your perspective of the photon, you are ignoring the rest of the companion light (photons emitted from the same object in a similar time frame)... And I am suggesting that, as a wave form, it should not be ignored, and any effect these interactions have can be tested for. Have they been tested for? I'd love to see the results.

    Edit: If anything, there may be a hint of strength here for a particle like nature in the idea that when a piece of the wave is absorbed by the electron, the wave does not continue along behind it, but rather is "blocked" and becomes conspicuously absent in the remaining wave propagation, but this too is merely conjecture/hypothesis, and requires solid evidence to hold any real ground... like my hypothesis that light has no particulate nature.

    Edit 2: Further thought experiments refute the above paragraph's validity in reference to a hint of strength for particle nature, because a blocked portion of a wave in any wave phenomena behaves just like this anyway...
    Last edited by Velexia; November 18th, 2013 at 04:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    but I am eager for something to fall on this joker.
    I find this comment to be in poor taste, and unwelcome in this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Perhaps the hubris of ignorance begs patience as opposed to a ban-hammer?
    Which is precisely why I have issued a moderator comment and not a moderator warning. I see nothing at all at this point that would warrant a suspension. I do see elements of a posting style that, historically, have led to much blood letting and an eventual ban. It is only proper that Velexia be made aware that their posting style has come to the attention of the mod-team. They may then choose to modify those elements of it that give concern, without in any way detracting from their core arguments, or expressions of skepticism.
    I disagree with you, but I'll leave it at that. I'm actually a bit bothered that the antagonistic comments I am receiving are not more mod-attention worthy. But whatever. I want to talk science, not nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Have you heard of the: Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

    How would you explain that from a purely wave character of light perspective?

    Specifically:

    In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source such as a laser beam illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[1][2] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen—a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles (i.e., small chunks of matter).[3][1] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Can you link me to the particulars of the experiment, and the images which show this? Because I was certain that was in reference to electrons, not light.
    The original experiment was performed by G. Taylor in 1909. I don't have images of the experiment, but the original paper is: Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, "Interference Fringes with Feeble Light", Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 15, 114 (1909).
    Here is a PDF of the paper you are referring to, but I don't see any mention of the effect you are referring to... although I do note the conspicuous presence of a needle (metal?), which may suggest that the photo-electric effect came into play, and thus electrons, but again, no real mention of any of this that I can see.

    http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergra...terference.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    How about the black body spectrum and the "ultraviolet catastrophe"; that seems a pretty conclusive argument for the quantum nature of electromagnetic radiation.

    And, as usual, we are faced with the fact that science is not a house of cards where someone who "thinks outside the box" can just show that a single piece of evidence is wrong and the whole edifice collapses. Instead it is a powerful, self reinforcing structure of compatible theories supported my multiple lines of evidence. If you want to get rid of quantisation, you will need to find alternative explanations in almost every area of science. (And makes sure that those ad-hoc explanations are not mutually contradictory.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I'm not sure how you are conceptualizing the light wave, but when I imagine the light wave, I imagine that each "ripple" has within it, that "quanta" of energy, which is distributed along a discrete wavelength.
    I don't really understand your model here. They key point about the photoelectric effect is that the intensity (energy) of the light doesn't matter, if the photons themselves don't have sufficient energy (i.e. the frequency is too low).

    It sounds like your workaround to that involves quantising light in some way: congratulations, you have just invented the quantum of electromagnetic radiation (I'm sure one day someone will give that a catchy name like "luxon" or something).

    The only difference I see between the idea of light as a wave, and the idea of light as a photon, is that light as a photon requires an infinite amount of particles to be created
    If light consisted of an infinite number of photons then it would have infinite energy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have you heard of the: Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

    How would you explain that from a purely wave character of light perspective?

    Specifically:

    In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source such as a laser beam illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[1][2] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen—a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles (i.e., small chunks of matter).[3][1] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen
    As far as I can tell, this is a confusion in the Wikipedia article, where it is actually referencing this:

    "An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). For example, when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire one electron at a time through the double slit,[20] the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits at once[21]—an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects."

    The images on the page represent the electron experiment. I have never seen images of this nature in reference to light alone, but I would love to, if they exist, because that would settle this all very quickly and easily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How about the black body spectrum and the "ultraviolet catastrophe"; that seems a pretty conclusive argument for the quantum nature of electromagnetic radiation.

    And, as usual, we are faced with the fact that science is not a house of cards where someone who "thinks outside the box" can just show that a single piece of evidence is wrong and the whole edifice collapses. Instead it is a powerful, self reinforcing structure of compatible theories supported my multiple lines of evidence. If you want to get rid of quantisation, you will need to find alternative explanations in almost every area of science. (And makes sure that those ad-hoc explanations are not mutually contradictory.)
    Obviously =)

    I mean, it may not be apparent to people who aren't reading everything I say, but I want to be shown that I am wrong here... I just need something truly convincing to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I'm not sure how you are conceptualizing the light wave, but when I imagine the light wave, I imagine that each "ripple" has within it, that "quanta" of energy, which is distributed along a discrete wavelength.
    I don't really understand your model here. They key point about the photoelectric effect is that the intensity (energy) of the light doesn't matter, if the photons themselves don't have sufficient energy (i.e. the frequency is too low).
    I've talked about this at least three times, so I don't really need to repeat myself on the matter, it's up above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It sounds like your workaround to that involves quantising light in some way: congratulations, you have just invented the quantum of electromagnetic radiation (I'm sure one day someone will give that a catchy name like "luxon" or something).
    I'm in no way refuting the idea of a quanta of energy, that would be ridiculous. I'm just of the opinion that a quanta of energy does not necessitate a particle. A single wavelength can contain a quanta of energy all the same, without violating any experimental evidence or mathematical formula.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The only difference I see between the idea of light as a wave, and the idea of light as a photon, is that light as a photon requires an infinite amount of particles to be created
    If light consisted of an infinite number of photons then it would have infinite energy.
    Yes, that's my point, and why I take issue with the idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have you heard of the: Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

    How would you explain that from a purely wave character of light perspective?

    Specifically:

    In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source such as a laser beam illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[1][2] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen—a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles (i.e., small chunks of matter).[3][1] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen
    As far as I can tell, this is a confusion in the Wikipedia article, where it is actually referencing this:

    "An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves—for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). For example, when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire one electron at a time through the double slit,[20] the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits at once[21]—an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects."

    The images on the page represent the electron experiment. I have never seen images of this nature in reference to light alone, but I would love to, if they exist, because that would settle this all very quickly and easily.
    It is not a confusion. The same thing happens when you fire individual photons at the slits.

    Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) - YouTube

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...e_duality.html
    Velexia likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It is not a confusion. The same thing happens when you fire individual photons at the slits.

    Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole) - YouTube

    wave-particle duality
    Well, the first link settles it for me. Seeing the image on the computer screen is all the proof I need. Thanks <3 Really.

    (I'm going to assume that the double slit is not composed of metal, and that in no way are electrons being ejected from it into the screen behind, and that the screen behind does not detect electrons regardless.)
    Last edited by Velexia; November 18th, 2013 at 04:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I mean, it may not be apparent to people who aren't reading everything I say, but I want to be shown that I am wrong here... I just need something truly convincing to do it.
    And yet you dismiss all evidence. What about black body radiation. Or are you just conveniently ignoring that as well?

    I'm in no way refuting the idea of a quanta of energy, that would be ridiculous. I'm just of the opinion that a quanta of energy does not necessitate a particle.
    But "particle" is just a (rather poor) name for a quantum of energy (in this context). It is a hangover from the days when things like electrons were thought to be particles as well. The word is just as inappropriate for an electron as it is for a photon.

    A single wavelength can contain a quanta of energy all the same, without violating any experimental evidence or mathematical formula.
    So why not give that "quantum of electromagnetic radiation" a snappier name, like "photon". It is just a name. If you agree with all the evidence and the math, then I don't see what else there is to say.

    If you are just arguing about the names "particle" or "photon" then it is a lost cause, I'm afraid. You might as well join those arguing for tau in place of pi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If light consisted of an infinite number of photons then it would have infinite energy.
    Yes, that's my point, and why I take issue with the idea.
    But that makes no sense. You can't argue against a theory on the basis of a strawman you have just made up ("an infinite number of photons"). That is like arguing that photons can't exist because they are not chocolate flavoured.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I mean, it may not be apparent to people who aren't reading everything I say, but I want to be shown that I am wrong here... I just need something truly convincing to do it.
    And yet you dismiss all evidence. What about black body radiation. Or are you just conveniently ignoring that as well?

    I'm in no way refuting the idea of a quanta of energy, that would be ridiculous. I'm just of the opinion that a quanta of energy does not necessitate a particle.
    But "particle" is just a (rather poor) name for a quantum of energy (in this context). It is a hangover from the days when things like electrons were thought to be particles as well. The word is just as inappropriate for an electron as it is for a photon.

    A single wavelength can contain a quanta of energy all the same, without violating any experimental evidence or mathematical formula.
    So why not give that "quantum of electromagnetic radiation" a snappier name, like "photon". It is just a name. If you agree with all the evidence and the math, then I don't see what else there is to say.

    If you are just arguing about the names "particle" or "photon" then it is a lost cause, I'm afraid. You might as well join those arguing for tau in place of pi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If light consisted of an infinite number of photons then it would have infinite energy.
    Yes, that's my point, and why I take issue with the idea.
    But that makes no sense. You can't argue against a theory on the basis of a strawman you have just made up ("an infinite number of photons"). That is like arguing that photons can't exist because they are not chocolate flavoured.

    I'm already convinced that light has been experimentally shown to have a particle nature (see post 44 and 45), but for the sake of discussion I'll address this final post.

    1. I did not dismiss evidence. I never have. As already stated previously, I may have dismissed the interpretation of ambiguous evidence, but I have never dismissed evidence itself.

    2. Black body radiation and the ultraviolet catastrophe amount to a necessity for a quanta of energy, but that fits into my waveform hypothesis. Still, again, see post 44 and 45.

    3. It's not about the name, it's about the concept. Posts 44 and 45, still.

    4. Read the whole context before assuming a strawman was constructed. What I take from the proof in post 44 is that there is a specific amount of photons, albeit, a lot of them, not emitted from a single electron source, but rather, a fair lot of sources in concert. Thus at a sufficient distance, not all observational reference frames would necessarily see an emitter of photons (such as a star) at all times (that would require infinite photons).

    5. In a discussion like this, it's best if you don't assume that the other person is an idiot, or doesn't understand implications of really rather simple concepts like black body radiation, the photo-electric effect, etc... , but rather is missing key information (such as the direct irrefutable evidence of singular photons being detected). If, after all possible avenues avaialble to you of trying to convince someone of something fail to convince them, it's their burden to bear, not yours, so you shouldn't be bothered by it. In this instance, it was my burden to bear that I could see no validity in the existence of photons in any of the experiments that I was aware of. Until now ~_^

    See, I can't simply be told to believe in something, and accept it. I have to see it for myself. Now I have, and I can think about other things. I'm glad that this forum exists, and I hope in the future, people will be less ad hominem / argument from authority, and more open to useful discussion. =)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    4. Read the whole context before assuming a strawman was constructed. What I take from the proof in post 44 is that there is a specific amount of photons, albeit, a lot of them, not emitted from a single electron source, but rather, a fair lot of sources in concert. Thus at a sufficient distance, not all observational reference frames would necessarily see an emitter of photons (such as a star) at all times (that would require infinite photons).
    I'm sorry if my comments came across as unnecessarily negative. I honestly could not understand your "quantised waveform" model or how it differed from light being quantised. And I don't see any reason for thinking there must be an infinite number of photons.

    But I'm glad you got the evidence you want. (Despite the fact that you criticised people for pointing out that the problem was your lack of the relevant knowledge. )

    However, if you now accept that photons are "particles" (which might be a mistake ) how do you account for the creation of the interference pattern after a sufficiently large number of individual photons are detected ....
    John Galt likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    4. Read the whole context before assuming a strawman was constructed. What I take from the proof in post 44 is that there is a specific amount of photons, albeit, a lot of them, not emitted from a single electron source, but rather, a fair lot of sources in concert. Thus at a sufficient distance, not all observational reference frames would necessarily see an emitter of photons (such as a star) at all times (that would require infinite photons).
    I'm sorry if my comments came across as unnecessarily negative. I honestly could not understand your "quantised waveform" model or how it differed from light being quantised. And I don't see any reason for thinking there must be an infinite number of photons.

    But I'm glad you got the evidence you want. (Despite the fact that you criticised people for pointing out that the problem was your lack of the relevant knowledge. )

    However, if you now accept that photons are "particles" (which might be a mistake ) how do you account for the creation of the interference pattern after a sufficiently large number of individual photons are detected ....
    Well, we have evidence of both electrons and photons exhibiting this behavior, and I'd hazard a guess that either this is a fundamental property of interacting particles (like molecules of water interacting to create wave patterns), or the particles are riding a wavefront to their destination. If we go with the latter we have to explain why the wavefront exists, and what it is a wave in... and that seems more complicated than the former guess...

    Further, I believe that the statistical model of quantum mechanics is an excellent model which fits experimental evidence, but I do not believe, as in the case of Neils Bohr, and others, that the statistical model is the entire picture. I'm more inclined to believe in hidden variables that we do not have the means to detect. I.E. I believe in a fundamentally deterministic universe rather than a fundamentally statistical one.
    Last edited by Velexia; November 18th, 2013 at 05:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    4. Read the whole context before assuming a strawman was constructed. What I take from the proof in post 44 is that there is a specific amount of photons, albeit, a lot of them, not emitted from a single electron source, but rather, a fair lot of sources in concert. Thus at a sufficient distance, not all observational reference frames would necessarily see an emitter of photons (such as a star) at all times (that would require infinite photons).
    I'm sorry if my comments came across as unnecessarily negative. I honestly could not understand your "quantised waveform" model or how it differed from light being quantised. And I don't see any reason for thinking there must be an infinite number of photons.

    But I'm glad you got the evidence you want. (Despite the fact that you criticised people for pointing out that the problem was your lack of the relevant knowledge. )

    However, if you now accept that photons are "particles" (which might be a mistake ) how do you account for the creation of the interference pattern after a sufficiently large number of individual photons are detected ....
    Well, we have evidence of both electrons and photons exhibiting this behavior, and I'd hazard a guess that either this is a fundamental property of interacting particles (like molecules of water interacting to create wave patterns), or the particles are riding a wavefront to their destination. If we go with the latter we have to explain why the wavefront exists, and what it is a wave in... and that seems more complicated than the former guess...

    Further, I believe that the statistical model of quantum mechanics is an excellent model which fits experimental evidence, but I do not believe, as in the case of Neils Bohr, and others, that the statistical model is the entire picture. I'm more inclined to believe in hidden variables that we do not have the means to detect. I.E. I believe in a fundamentally deterministic universe rather than a fundamentally statistical one.
    Well I think you are in good company there. But it comes down to personal philosophical conviction rather than any evidence, so far. Speaking as a chemist, for whom clouds of probability seem to be able to explain the field rather well, I'm fairly content with QM as it is. And philosophically, I find the idea that there are limits to how much we can define about the world quite in tune with personal experience, so fairly natural and comforting. But again that's a purely personal feeling, rather than a logical inference of any kind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    If it turns out that the statistical model really is all there is to existence, I can accept that. I do worry that by believing it, we necessarily slow down any progress toward the possible alternative though. Using the model is fine, but believing that it's all there is seems to stymy any effort to search deeper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    but I am eager for something to fall on this joker.
    I find this comment to be in poor taste, and unwelcome in this discussion.
    Waaah!!!

    All you have done is state your doubt of established science and then proceed to imagine offense in reasonable replies whilst you jam fingers in your ears, and sing LA! LA! LA!

    Reminds me of that joker galexander, from this thread; Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour?

    I guess that I should thank the OP for displaying an acceptable minimum of grammar, unparsable walls of text do suck.
    I'm not interested in feeding the troll so I'm out for now.
    PhDemon likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    but I am eager for something to fall on this joker.
    I find this comment to be in poor taste, and unwelcome in this discussion.
    Waaah!!!

    All you have done is state your doubt of established science and then proceed to imagine offense in reasonable replies whilst you jam fingers in your ears, and sing LA! LA! LA!

    Reminds me of that joker galexander, from this thread; Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour?

    I guess that I should thank the OP for displaying an acceptable minimum of grammar, unparsable walls of text do suck.
    I'm not interested in feeding the troll so I'm out for now.
    Calling someone a joker, the way you did, is an offhand remark with no bearing on the conversation which is not polite in any way. It was rude, ignorant, and unecessary. You literally have no grounds for defending it.

    With your "Wahhh!!!" comment you've pretty much further proven your inability to behave like an adult.

    Why don't you turn off your computer, and come back when you've learned some manners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning: Here's the deal.

    1. Velexia, your posting style is provocative and much of what you say is thought to be ill-informed by several members. Do not react to anything you construe as a personal remark.

    2. Other members: before this situation becomes more out of hand than it is, right now stop making anything that could be construed as a personal remark about Velexia.

    Anyone, including members of the mod-team, including myself, who ignores this warning will be suspended.

    Do not respond to this warning in this thread. That will also earn you a suspension.

    And thanks to those who have kept their hair on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Then, is it OK if I respond to this warning in another thread? That would make little sense there, and here it is verboten.

    "Mods will be suspended"?? Fat chance, cold hell. You must have some kinda "pull" with the owner.

    Aw, shit! I responded to the warning in this thread. Excuse me? joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Then, is it OK if I respond to this warning in another thread? That would make little sense there, and here it is verboten.

    "Mods will be suspended"?? Fat chance, cold hell. You must have some kinda "pull" with the owner.

    Aw, shit! I responded to the warning in this thread. Excuse me? joc
    Not amusing. Don't push your luck. And I assure you that mods would be suspended, or I would be out of here. So don't try my patience, or my sincerity.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Then, is it OK if I respond to this warning in another thread? That would make little sense there, and here it is verboten.

    "Mods will be suspended"?? Fat chance, cold hell. You must have some kinda "pull" with the owner.

    Aw, shit! I responded to the warning in this thread. Excuse me? joc
    Not amusing. Don't push your luck. And I assure you that mods would be suspended, or I would be out of here. So don't try my patience, or my sincerity.
    You amuse ME, intensely. Go FUCK yourself. Have a good time! Triple dog god-damned dare you to leave this remark in place long enough to jeopardize your infinitely reader-accepted mentality, before a sufficient number read it......ASSHOLE! joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    You amuse ME, intensely. Go FUCK yourself. Have a good time! Triple dog god-damned dare you to leave this remark in place long enough to jeopardize your infinitely reader-accepted mentality, before a sufficient number read it......ASSHOLE! joc
    MODERATOR ACTION : This is unacceptable both in content and in language, especially after having been warned already. I am suspending you for three days - during that time I would like you to think about your reasons for being here, and your posting style. Any repeat after your return will result in a longer ban next time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    MODERATOR ACTION : This is unacceptable both in content and in language, especially after having been warned already. I am suspending you for three days - during that time I would like you to think about your reasons for being here, and your posting style. Any repeat after your return will result in a longer ban next time.
    This answers what I posted in another thread. I will, however, refrain from asking for evidence that a moderator has ever actually been suspended on the board...

    Instead, I'll go back to the O.P.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    (to be fair, Astrophysics is my major, so these two books are far from my only experience with the subject matter).
    At what University are you majoring in Astophysics?
    And I will be blunt. I will not simply accept your word - I really think that you should scan documentation for us all to see.
    Whether this qualifies under the warning issued above, I do not know. I believe it is a valid question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    One of these thoughts kept coming back, stronger and stronger the more I read. Photons... are not real. I saw the equations detailing the quanta of energy delivered to an electron by light energy... I am fully aware of the photo-electric effect... and yet, I see no evidence in either of those for the necessity of a thing called a photon; no reason to believe that light has any particulate qualities.
    If I have a pool of perfectly still water, and disturb it in such a way as to create a single ripple... traveling outward from the center it will carry with it, a specific amount of energy, a quanta of energy, if you will, which it may impart to any particulate that happens to be resting on the surface of the water. Now, this is not a perfect analogy, but it should make sense.
    Given the track your train is on here, I would ask you to define, "energy."
    Explain to me what "energy" is, whether it can be quantified, is it 'real?'
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    In the meantime, please, convince me that light is a particle, or even partially a particle. Convince me that photons exist, because I am seriously doubting them.
    Perhaps I am ignorant or behind the times. As I understand it, a photon, in physics, is not considered a Particle. This request strikes me as a Red Herring or Wild Goose Chase.
    A major in Astrophysics should be pretty familiar with particle/wave duality.
    Which causes my doubt as to the veracity of your claim.
    DogLady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This answers what I posted in another thread. I will, however, refrain from asking for evidence that a moderator has ever actually been suspended on the board...
    I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This answers what I posted in another thread. I will, however, refrain from asking for evidence that a moderator has ever actually been suspended on the board...
    I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.
    PM'ed it to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    T
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Then, is it OK if I respond to this warning in another thread? That would make little sense there, and here it is verboten.

    "Mods will be suspended"?? Fat chance, cold hell. You must have some kinda "pull" with the owner.

    Aw, shit! I responded to the warning in this thread. Excuse me? joc
    Not amusing. Don't push your luck. And I assure you that mods would be suspended, or I would be out of here. So don't try my patience, or my sincerity.
    You amuse ME, intensely. Go FUCK yourself. Have a good time! Triple dog god-damned dare you to leave this remark in place long enough to jeopardize your infinitely reader-accepted mentality, before a sufficient number read it......ASSHOLE! joc
    There was an issue on this and other threads where disagreements were becoming hostile between Velexia and other members. The moderator warning was designed to put a stop to that. Your intervention was not at all helpful. The only reason I did not ban you for responding to the post when directly asked not to is that you were not involved in the earlier disputes and I suspected you may have thought you were being funny. You weren't.

    You are free to think I would not ensure a mod was banned if he flouted the warning. You would wrong. I don't think we can actually ban mods through the software but we can request that they voluntarily disappear.

    I have no idea why you doubt me on this, but I am offended by it. However, shortly it will not be a problem.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Instead, I'll go back to the O.P.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    (to be fair, Astrophysics is my major, so these two books are far from my only experience with the subject matter).
    At what University are you majoring in Astophysics?
    And I will be blunt. I will not simply accept your word - I really think that you should scan documentation for us all to see.
    Whether this qualifies under the warning issued above, I do not know. I believe it is a valid question.
    There's nothing offensive here, I don't think you have to worry... But, being a forum on the internet filled with people who like to insult each other, I really have no inclination to go through the trouble of collecting my paperwork and scanning it for you. It does me no real service. However, I will answer you, and you can take my word, or leave it at your discretion.

    In 2001 I joined the US Army for the sole purpose of receiving the MGI Bill for College. In 2005 I was honorably discharged from the Army, and moved to Boulder, Colorado. A quick google search of my name might even take you to my Deviant Art page where you can see history of me talking about this.

    Once at Boulder, Colorado I enrolled at CU Boulder with the Astrophsyics Major as a goal. I took somewhere between 5 and 6 semesters of college courses there, starting with Black Hole Physics as one of my very first college courses, along with pre-calculus (I had only ever gone as far as Statistics in math in High School) after testing out of college Algebra and Trigonometry (Testing out of Trigonometry was probably a mistake because it made dealing with trig in calculus a lot harder for me). Afterward I took Advanced Astrophysics I and II, and then proceeded down to Calculus Based Physics. (Sort of a reverse order...)

    Eventually my free time at CU Boulder was over, and they requested that I take classes at various community colleges, since it was so long ago since my time in High School.
    So I went to various community colleges such as Red Rocks Community College, Westminster Community College, Front Range Community College, and Community College of Denver, where I took classes such as Calculus 1, 2 and 3, Chemistry, and between all of these colleges and CU Boulder I also took every general class necessary to fill my degree requirements.

    It's now 8 years later, which may seem odd to you, but you have to realize that I am mostly working, and trying to eat, paying way too much for rent, and sometimes my time between courses is a full year or more. I'm hoping to get back into CU this spring and take the last 4-8 classes to finish my first degree and get on with my life (taking even more classes to get a higher degree).

    You can infer from all of that, that I am at least 30 years old, which I am (18 in 2001, joining the Army). I still have a lot of math classes to take, and most importantly, other high level astrophysics classes which I am very excited for, including a class on quantum mechanics (all of my knowledge in that area is from personal reading).

    I'm fairly close to the edge of poverty, having been a bit to generous with my money helping others around me, and I tend to get very bored very quickly in basic classes (like Calculus based Physics). I've never taken out a college loan before, because I've fought hard to keep myself out of debt, but I am struggling with the idea that this may be my only option in the future.

    So yeah, I've taken college courses, I am majoring in Astrophysics, and I am very close to a degree, but life is a struggle. I sure do love the hell out of Astrophysics though =)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    A major in Astrophysics should be pretty familiar with particle/wave duality.
    Which causes my doubt as to the veracity of your claim.
    I am very familiar with wave/particle duality. But you have to understand that, as a thinking, rational person, if I see, what I think of, as a flaw in reasoning for the particle part of it, I may have to question it. I did, so I did, and I sought out this forum to get anything which could convince me otherwise, and I got it. Pretty neat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There was an issue on this and other threads where disagreements were becoming hostile between Velexia and other members. The moderator warning was designed to put a stop to that. Your intervention was not at all helpful. The only reason I did not ban you for responding to the post when directly asked not to is that you were not involved in the earlier disputes and I suspected you may have thought you were being funny. You weren't.

    You are free to think I would not ensure a mod was banned if he flouted the warning. You would wrong. I don't think we can actually ban mods through the software but we can request that they voluntarily disappear.

    I have no idea why you doubt me on this, but I am offended by it. However, shortly it will not be a problem.
    I'm sorry for every and any part I had to play leading up to this, I don't know why he did that, but I'm sorry that I indirectly caused it =(
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    But, being a forum on the internet filled with people who like to insult each other, I really have no inclination to go through the trouble of collecting my paperwork and scanning it for you. It does me no real service. However, I will answer you, and you can take my word, or leave it at your discretion.
    I choose, then, to not take your word for it. The reason I don't is because I learned, while training to be an astronaut for NASA, that many people will fudge their records. Learning that back then, in 1956, held me in much greater stead when I produced my resume and had the foresight to show evidence on it for having earned my Congressional model of honor and medal of Valor while serving in Vietnam.
    Later when I ran for Governor of California, that lesson hit home sharply when my opponent embellished his record and defeated me in the election.
    I returned to duty for the Secret Service and don't regret losing the election--- not as much as I regret not running faster that day in Dallas of 1963.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So yeah, I've taken college courses, I am majoring in Astrophysics, and I am very close to a degree, but life is a struggle. I sure do love the hell out of Astrophysics though =)
    I took from that that saying you are majoring in Astophysics is an accurate enough statement, it's also a misleading one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I am very familiar with wave/particle duality. But you have to understand that, as a thinking, rational person, if I see, what I think of, as a flaw in reasoning for the particle part of it, I may have to question it. I did, so I did, and I sought out this forum to get anything which could convince me otherwise, and I got it. Pretty neat.
    I'll admit that I got distracted in the thread and didn't get the full of it. I would need to read upward and find where you got the 'answer' and accepted correction. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying I didn't see it when I had posted previously.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Heh heh, I see what you did there =P

    But yeah...

    Post 44 and 45.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Heh heh, I see what you did there =P

    But yeah...

    Post 44 and 45.
    Reading.

    Oh and I forgot- Belated Welcome to the Board. (Since you've not posted in a long while...)
    Velexia likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Do photons have mass?
    By des.red35 in forum Physics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: July 10th, 2011, 07:52 PM
  2. collision of photons
    By shawngoldw in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 9th, 2007, 04:36 PM
  3. No photons.
    By leohopkins in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 18th, 2007, 12:35 PM
  4. Photons (again)
    By leohopkins in forum Physics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 15th, 2007, 02:44 PM
  5. Photons
    By leohopkins in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 4th, 2007, 02:35 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •