![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote:Electron and Information.
===
Information is transferred through EM waves.
There isn't EM wave without electron. (H. Lorentz)
socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote:''Information is the new atom or electron,
the fundamental building block of the universe ...
We now see the world as entirely made of information:
it's bits all the way down.''
/ Bryan Appleyard /
socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote:''It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes
in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way.''
/ Richard Feynman about an electron /
socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote: Michael Brooks:
'‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.'’
socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote:==============
Please, leave comment:
a) it is nonsense
b) it is doubtful
c) perhaps it is possible
================
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 5th, 2018, 4:20 am wrote:socrat44 » May 5th, 2018, 2:44 am wrote: Michael Brooks:
'‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.'’
This is a speculative conjecture and and a dubious one at that. The claim is based on CPT invariance in particle physics, which just means that information is conserved in these interactions. But the universe is not reversible and CPT invariant because of quantum decoherence and thermodynamics.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 5th, 2018, 4:20 am wrote:
The only completely necessary particle is the photon.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » May 5th, 2018, 1:37 pm wrote:mitchellmckain » May 5th, 2018, 4:20 am wrote:
The only completely necessary particle is the photon.
The only completely UN-necessary particle is the photon.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 5th, 2018, 7:48 pm wrote:I think what Bangstrom is saying is that a real (as opposed to "virtual") photon implies an emitter. That seems defensible.
Faradave » May 5th, 2018, 7:48 pm wrote:Some, such as myself would go so far as to say a photon implies both an emitter and an absorber (in the emitter's future). That's a decidedly 4D perspective, but from that perspective, lightlike interval separation is zero, obviating an intermediary particle.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:...we can imagine a universe which contains nothing but a photon.
mitchellmckain wrote:...the EM wave simply is -- neither emitted nor absorbed.
socrat44 wrote:all things physical are information-theoretic in origin
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 6th, 2018, 1:05 am wrote:socrat44 wrote:all things physical are information-theoretic in origin
I don't have a problem with this but information requires representation
(i.e. at least some sort of binary contrast.)
That's the physicality.
It doesn't have to be a conventional object (particle) but there must be
a distinction from whatever background you propose.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 5th, 2018, 7:48 pm wrote:I think what Bangstrom is saying is that a real (as opposed to "virtual") photon implies an emitter. That seems defensible. Some, such as myself would go so far as to say a photon implies both an emitter and an absorber (in the emitter's future). That's a decidedly 4D perspective, but from that perspective, lightlike interval separation is zero, obviating an intermediary particle.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 5th, 2018, 6:15 pm wrote: The context is the question, what is required for an electromagnetic wave. The photon cannot make an EM wave, but the photon IS an EM wave. Thus you can imagine a universe with no charged or magnetic particles and just one photon -- such a universe thus has an EM wave. If you have an EM wave then you have a photon and a universe without photons is a universe without an EM wave. Thus the only completely necessary particle is the photon. Most of the universe is space empty of everything but photons (i.e. EM waves).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 5th, 2018, 6:15 pm wrote: The context is the question, what is required for an electromagnetic wave. The photon cannot make an EM wave, but the photon IS an EM wave. Thus you can imagine a universe with no charged or magnetic particles and just one photon -- such a universe thus has an EM wave. If you have an EM wave then you have a photon and a universe without photons is a universe without an EM wave. Thus the only completely necessary particle is the photon. Most of the universe is space empty of everything but photons (i.e. EM waves).
This explanation makes the photon more like a wave rather than a particle and I see that as a step in the right direction
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote: but is an EM wave energy itself or a carrier for energy?
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:And, there is the old question, ‘If EM is a wave, what is waving?’
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:
Other problems with the EM wave is that light appears to travel as though prescient of its destination and aware of its surroundings as if "piloted" by something existing prior to its emission.
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:
I see the universe as an ocean of waves and this background of waves can appear as standing waves that we identify as “particles” or it can serve as a wave medium in which remote particles can interact non-locally as exemplified by entanglement. These waves have been called quantum waves or formerly probability waves but I like to think of them as the stuff of space itself.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote: A photon is neither more a wave nor more a particle -- it is frankly neither of these. The wave and the particle are simply visualizations to help understand the quantum field, which has some similarities to both the wave and the particle. Like a particle it is a discrete quantity of energy. Like a wave it exhibits interference effects and like a transverse wave it exhibits polarization effects. Like a wave it spreads out over space and yet like a particle it can nevertheless interact with other things at a point as if it hadn't spread out over space and this spread wave just represents a probability distribution for such interactions. But it really does seem to spread out like a wave and this probabilistic character is a fundamental part of its nature.
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
If things simply carried energy like a person carrying a ball, then just like a person giving the ball to another and thus having no ball, these things could give this energy to something else and have no energy. But what we see instead is that when all the energy is given to something else then it no longer exists, and this tells us that the energy is everything -- the very substance of its being. Otherwise what you have is more like a religion telling us that people just have bodies and when all that flesh and bone is destroyed then there is still something there we cannot see or measure. But I don't think this is a religion we are talking about, right? So in the sciences things don't carry energy any more than people have or carry bodies.
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:
Other problems with the EM wave is that light appears to travel as though prescient of its destination and aware of its surroundings as if "piloted" by something existing prior to its emission.
Metaphors are often used in the explanations of physics to non-scientists. It doesn't mean that they should be taken literally.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » May 7th, 2018, 1:59 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote: A photon is neither more a wave nor more a particle -- it is frankly neither of these. The wave and the particle are simply visualizations to help understand the quantum field, which has some similarities to both the wave and the particle. Like a particle it is a discrete quantity of energy. Like a wave it exhibits interference effects and like a transverse wave it exhibits polarization effects. Like a wave it spreads out over space and yet like a particle it can nevertheless interact with other things at a point as if it hadn't spread out over space and this spread wave just represents a probability distribution for such interactions. But it really does seem to spread out like a wave and this probabilistic character is a fundamental part of its nature.
Your description of the photon sounds too wonderful to believe.
bangstrom » May 7th, 2018, 1:59 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
If things simply carried energy like a person carrying a ball, then just like a person giving the ball to another and thus having no ball, these things could give this energy to something else and have no energy. But what we see instead is that when all the energy is given to something else then it no longer exists, and this tells us that the energy is everything -- the very substance of its being. Otherwise what you have is more like a religion telling us that people just have bodies and when all that flesh and bone is destroyed then there is still something there we cannot see or measure. But I don't think this is a religion we are talking about, right? So in the sciences things don't carry energy any more than people have or carry bodies.
In other words, you don’t know how light energy gets from here to there.
bangstrom » May 6th, 2018, 5:55 am wrote:
The “pilot” metaphor I had in mind was Bohm’s “pilot wave theory” aka “hidden variables” where particles, including photons, are guided in their trajectories by a collective of waves that evolve from surrounding material particles according to Schroedinger equation. These pilot waves predetermine the path of a particle in a way that satisfies Bell’s definition of non-locality. That is, instant action at a distance.
It is my understanding of Bohm’s theory that his pilot waves, or something similar, do the work of the EM wave prior to its appearance so we have no need for an EM wave.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
If things simply carried energy like a person carrying a ball, then just like a person giving the ball to another and thus having no ball, these things could give this energy to something else and have no energy. But what we see instead is that when all the energy is given to something else then it no longer exists, and this tells us that the energy is everything -- the very substance of its being. Otherwise what you have is more like a religion telling us that people just have bodies and when all that flesh and bone is destroyed then there is still something there we cannot see or measure. But I don't think this is a religion we are talking about, right? So in the sciences things don't carry energy any more than people have or carry bodies.
bangstrom » May 7th, 2018, 1:59 am wrote:In other words, you don’t know how light energy gets from here to there.
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
In other words, you didn't understand anything I wrote, and don't even care to try.
mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
David Bohm's "pilot wave theory" pilfered from DeBroglie's waste bin isn't worth consideration -- not if you have any interest in consistency with the scientific findings.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
If things simply carried energy like a person carrying a ball, then just like a person giving the ball to another and thus having no ball, these things could give this energy to something else and have no energy. But what we see instead is that when all the energy is given to something else then it no longer exists, and this tells us that the energy is everything -- the very substance of its being. Otherwise what you have is more like a religion telling us that people just have bodies and when all that flesh and bone is destroyed then there is still something there we cannot see or measure. But I don't think this is a religion we are talking about, right? So in the sciences things don't carry energy any more than people have or carry bodies.
That's right. I didn't understand a thing you said.
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote:Your comment above mentions how light does not get from here to there.
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote: There is not a croûton in your salad that mentions how it does. Am I wrong?
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote: The problem is, you say nothing, or no thing, carries energy and I thought that was the job of the EM wave- photon so how does light energy get from here to there?
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote:It is my claim that we don't need photons or EM waves to carry light energy and I thought your claim was that we do.
bangstrom » May 8th, 2018, 12:57 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 6th, 2018, 9:29 pm wrote:
David Bohm's "pilot wave theory" pilfered from DeBroglie's waste bin isn't worth consideration -- not if you have any interest in consistency with the scientific findings.
I like Bohm’s theory because his conclusions are consistent with observations even though his explanations may be wrong so he must be getting something right. His theory can correctly predict the outcome of complex things like tests of Wheelers delayed choice or the “quantum eraser” and I don't know of a time where he gets it wrong.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:we know that an EM wave consists of a changing magnetic field producing a perpendicular electric field which produces a perpendicular magnetic field and so on.
...
light is a form of energy consisting of a propagation of electric and magnetic fields continuously creating each other ... the next crest must come from the previous crest...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:we know that an EM wave consists of a changing magnetic field producing a perpendicular electric field which produces a perpendicular magnetic field and so on.
...
light is a form of energy consisting of a propagation of electric and magnetic fields continuously creating each other ... the next crest must come from the previous crest...
As usual, you provide a fine representation of conventional doctrine. But in the back of your mind must exist a nagging sense of inconsistency.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:Change, such as described above, implies elapsed time, (or "aging", or "time experienced") Yet in the limit, as speed approaches c, time dilates infinitely. A photon doesn't age. If it had a clock of any sort, it would not tic. That of course, includes an electromagnetic wave clock. It's not so much a question of what is waving as how can anything wave? It can't.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:I love photon torpedoes as much as the next Trekkie,
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:but in physics, I believe the photon model raises more questions than it answers.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:Light transmission implies both emitter and (future) absorber.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:By which you mean, such a sense of inconsistency is found in the back of your own mind.
mitchellmckain wrote:But you are just imagining the end of a limit which we have no reason to believe has a basis in reality.
mitchellmckain wrote:There is no such things as the rest frame of a photon
mitchellmckain wrote:do you not realize that in this particular way of looking at things the universe is squashed flat in BOTH in time and that particular direction of space also. ...especially revealing.
mitchellmckain wrote: In fact in the endlessly expanding universe in which we live that is exactly what most photons do.
mitchellmckain wrote:[direct contact]as much the zero interval suggests this to you, this is an entirely subjective impression of a purely mathematical construct
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:By which you mean, such a sense of inconsistency is found in the back of your own mind.
Certainly, as it's undeniable. We're born ignorant. The brighter the person, the sooner the inconsistency is realized. I gave you due credit.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:But you are just imagining the end of a limit which we have no reason to believe has a basis in reality.
Exactly. No worldline, no particle. The appearance of a worldline on a spacetime diagram is purely distortion (as I illustrate in "Getting Coordinated" above.) This isn't my imagination as referenced quotes are provided.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:You put yourself (along with most physicists) in a position of suggesting photons don't travel at limit c, or they don't sustain change (including EM waves). I'm not saying there is no EM wave, just that it is better attributed to the emitter than to an imagined intermediary.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:"A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage." Wikipedia - Spacetime
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:There is no such things as the rest frame of a photon
Agreed, not in conventional spacetime. The simplest explanation for this is - no photon.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:do you not realize that in this particular way of looking at things the universe is squashed flat in BOTH in time and that particular direction of space also. ...especially revealing.
Yes, of course. Think about that. It doesn't mean the universe is squashed flat for every observer (or even any real observer). It means a light quantum has a way of bypassing the space and time of those observers.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:Direct contact bypassing space and time is reasonably described as via wormhole. Check out "The 'Hole' Shebang" below for details.
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote: In fact in the endlessly expanding universe in which we live that is exactly what most photons do.
Come now! Unfalsifiable bias. Absorbers are always in the future of the emitter, some further than others. Every light transmission ever documented, had an absorber. Pretty good trend, don't you think?
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 4:23 pm wrote:mitchellmckain wrote:[direct contact]as much the zero interval suggests this to you, this is an entirely subjective impression of a purely mathematical construct
Respectfully, no. Every classical contact you may care to acknowledge is, in fact, also zero interval contact ( ∆t=∆x=0). Another flawless trend. No reason to think it doesn't apply just as well when ∆t=∆x≠0 .
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » May 8th, 2018, 5:23 pm wrote:
Respectfully, no.
Every classical contact you may care to acknowledge is,
in fact, also zero interval contact ( ∆t=∆x=0).
Another flawless trend.
No reason to think it doesn't apply just as well when ∆t=∆x≠0 .
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 9th, 2018, 12:17 am wrote:Once again you are taking anthropomorphizing metaphors literally.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » May 9th, 2018, 2:53 am wrote:#
now we need to solve a small problem: . . .
to add Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ((∆t ∆E ≠ /> h/4π)
or ((∆x ∆p ≠ /> h/4π) to your formulas.
=================
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 9th, 2018, 4:26 am wrote:socrat44 » May 9th, 2018, 2:53 am wrote:#
now we need to solve a small problem: . . .
to add Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ((∆t ∆E ≠ /> h/4π)
or ((∆x ∆p ≠ /> h/4π) to your formulas.
=================
Careful!
These, ∆x and ∆t, are not the same thing.
In the uncertainty principle these refer error
margins in the determination of these quantities.
But in Faradave's case these refer to
an interval of space-time traveled by light -- a very different thing!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » May 9th, 2018, 5:00 am wrote:mitchellmckain » May 9th, 2018, 4:26 am wrote:socrat44 » May 9th, 2018, 2:53 am wrote:#
now we need to solve a small problem: . . .
to add Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ((∆t ∆E ≠ /> h/4π)
or ((∆x ∆p ≠ /> h/4π) to your formulas.
=================
Careful!
These, ∆x and ∆t, are not the same thing.
In the uncertainty principle these refer error
margins in the determination of these quantities.
But in Faradave's case these refer to
an interval of space-time traveled by light -- a very different thing!
if in Faradave's case (and in Quantum case too)
the ''interval of space-time traveled by light -- '' is zero (0)
then all physical parameters are zero and cannot be observed.
Then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears on a scene
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
socrat44 » May 9th, 2018, 4:02 am wrote:
if in Faradave's case (and in Quantum case too)
the ''interval of space-time traveled by light -- '' is zero (0)
then all physical parameters are zero and cannot be observed.
Then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears on a scene
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain wrote:your thoughts and feelings are derived from premises of subjective origins
mitchellmckain wrote:what you say here is outrageously patronizing
mitchellmckain wrote: [My claims of spacetime distortion.] Your quotations prove nothing.
mitchellmckain wrote:The existence of the photon is demonstrable and part of the world we measure and experience.
mitchellmckain wrote:It is the bizarre reduction of reality to an imagined rest frame of the photon which exists only in imagination.
mitchellmckain wrote:We have...an infinite series of inertial frames which in the limit has no passage of time relative to us. But just because such a series exists does not mean the limit actually exists.
mitchellmckain wrote:"conventional space-time" is what we experience and measure
mitchellmckain wrote:the so called speed of light is very much like an infinite speed which is only made to appear like a finite speed to observers
mitchellmckain wrote:Wormholes are something entirely different based on a scientific description by Einstein and Rosen and is thus also call an Einstein-Rosen bridge.
mitchellmckain wrote:Scientists use the measured data as means to make conclusions about what is never measured.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » May 9th, 2018, 11:41 am wrote:
To clarify, in Faradave's case, actually have...
The observed (measured) interval ∆x ≠ 0 and ∆t ≠ 0 traveled by light (by some real observer) and a calculated ∆x' = 0 and ∆t' = 0 in the imagined/limiting "rest frame" of light. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle only applies to measured quantities and thus we have a ∆∆x and ∆∆t, satisfying ((∆∆t ∆E ≠ /> h/4π) and ((∆∆x ∆p ≠ /> h/4π) where ∆E and ∆p would be the uncertainties in a simultaneous measurements of the momentum and energy of the light under question. The ∆x' = 0 and ∆t' = 0 are never observed and, as I explained, it is dubious to even claim this imagined/limiting "rest frame" of light even exists. It can be understood, I suppose, that socrat44 is suggesting difficulties in supposing it does exist, while I am simply declaring that we have no legitimate basis for doing so in the first place. There are a number of inconsistencies in doing so. For any observer the Energy and momentum would be infinite in such a frame and for the light itself red-shift would reduce the energy and momentum of the light to zero. Indeed, it would be consistent to suggest that this light would not even exist in this imagined "rest frame." Such absurdities are hardly unexpected when we go beyond what science considers legitimate. Regardless, if we indulge Faradave's fantasies, we can certainly counter his claim of energy being delivered in no time with the reply that no energy is actually delivered at all in such a case.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests