Electron and Information.

[socrat44]

Electron and Information.
===
Information is transferred through EM waves.
There isn't EM wave without electron. (H. Lorentz)
#
''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 /
#
''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 /
===
Electron is a quantum of  information.
Electron is a keeper of information.
Why?
An electron  has six ( 6 ) formulas:
      E=h*f  and    e^2=ah*c ,
    +E=Mc^2    and  -E=Mc^2 ,
     E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV    and  E= ∞  . . . .
      and  obeys  five (5) Laws :
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) Dirac - Fermi statistic
e) Maxwell / Lorentz EM law
It means in different actions electron must know six different formulas
and must observe five laws. To behave in such different
conditions a single electron itself must be a keeper of information.
#
  Michael Brooks:
'‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.'’
    / Book ‘ The big questions’.  Page 195-196. /
It means an electron (as a little blobs of a definite amount of energy)
even in different situations never loses its information.
==============
Please, leave comment:
a) it is nonsense
b) it is doubtful
c) perhaps it is possible
================

[mitchellmckain]

Electron and Information.
===
Information is transferred through EM waves.
There isn't EM wave without electron. (H. Lorentz)

This is incorrect.
The only completely necessary particle is the photon.
However to make an EM wave you need a particle with either an electric charge or a magnetic field. An electron will do but there are many others which will work too.

''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 /

This is also incorrect. Information is a context dependent measurable quantity only. It is neither conserved nor all that well defined. The fundamental building block of the universe is energy. By contrast energy is conserved, well defined, and universal. Everything is made of energy. Yeah I know that Sean Carroll argues that energy is not conserved, but this is just semantics derived from excluding the energy of space-time.

''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 /

More empty semantics. Lack of a visualization or philosophical understanding does not detract from the simple fact that energy is something we can define and measure. Claiming that we have a better handle on information than energy is completely absurd.

  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.

==============
Please, leave comment:
a) it is nonsense
b) it is doubtful
c) perhaps it is possible
================

It is doubtful bordering on nonsense.

[mitchellmckain]

  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.

At the very least, this is a hotly debated issue rather than one of consensus. To me the idea seems absurd. The destruction of information is a stark fact of human life. Push the wrong button and what you are writing on the computer is irretrievably lost. Toss the only copy of a manuscript in a fire and the information is lost. A witness is murdered and the memory of what they saw is lost. Likewise, we are constantly creating new information: new films, new books, new art, new games, etc... All this suggests is that the physics measure of information especially in claims of conservation is highly context dependent and rather removed from what most mean by the word. Even in basic information theory which studies the loss information in transmission is context dependent. A signal always arrives with the same number of bits of data, but it is the context of what has been sent which defines the measure of information.

[bangstrom]

The only completely necessary particle is the photon.

The only completely UN-necessary particle is the photon.

[mitchellmckain]

The only completely necessary particle is the photon.

The only completely UN-necessary particle is the photon.

Incorrect. 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).

[Faradave]

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.

Caution (shameless plug): I did a series of short videos on this. The gist is contained in episode 01 below.



In Schumacher's course on Information Theory, he contrasts Rolf Landauer's position:
information is physical (i.e. mass-energy)
with John Wheeler's position:
physics is informational ("It From Bit", the physical arises from information).

I haven't gotten around to a video on this yet but IT is on my list. Suffice it to say that both views were treated with respect and suggested equivalence. Information and mass-energy seem fundamentally inseparable at the elementary level.

[socrat44]

INFORMATION, PHYSICS, QUANTUM:
THE SEARCH FOR LINKS

John Archibald Wheeler

http://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/wheeler.pdf
===
It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world
has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances —
an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises
in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the
registering of equipment-evoked responses;
in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin
and this is a participatory universe.

/ John Archibald Wheeler /

https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/0 ... t-wheeler/

[mitchellmckain]

I think what Bangstrom is saying is that a real (as opposed to "virtual") photon implies an emitter. That seems defensible.

Sounds like the cosmological argument. But it is invalid. A photon no more implies an emitter than the universe implies a creator. Like I said, we can imagine a universe which contains nothing but a photon. In that case, the EM wave simply is -- neither emitted nor absorbed.

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.

The only thing a photon implies is an EM wave because these are the same thing. What you can say is that the because the laws of physics are a part of what the photon is that it implies both space and time and the Standard model which implies virtual electrons and other virtual particles. But I don't see how the universe with only one non-virtual particle, namely a photon, in it is excluded from possibility. If it were two photons with a high enough energy then it is possible for them to interact with a virtual particle pair and create a real particle pair (2 photons are required for the conservation of momentum in the rest frame of the center of mass of the particle pair).

[Faradave]

...we can imagine a universe which contains nothing but a photon.

Indeed. But that requires prior admission of such a particle as a photon. Transmission of a light quantum can (and should) be reasonably modeled as via direct interval contact (i.e. zero interval separation). But contact is mutual, implying emitter-absorber contact.

"Where light goes from a given point is always separated from it by a zero interval." - Feynman p. 99

...the EM wave simply is -- neither emitted nor absorbed.

As you like. This is an imaginary universe. It would seem however, that one must then also imagine an all-pervasive electric field, in a universe devoid of electric charge (the lone photon being chargeless). Maxwell (and Gauss) would not be pleased!

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.

[socrat44]

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.

Physically the ''binary contrast '' is hidden in the concept
of ''duality'': photon / electron can behave as corpuscular
and wave simultaneously.
''Duality'' is one of the basic (binary contrast) puzzle in the Physics.
===============

[socrat44]

Where the "it from bit" come from?
Luigi Foschini
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2013)

In his 1989 essay, John Archibald Wheeler has tried to answer
the eternal question of existence. He did it by searching for links
between information, physics, and quanta.
The main concept emerging from his essay is that
"every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance
from bits, binary yes-or-no indications".
This concept has been summarized in the catchphrase "it from bit".

https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0545
#
Can information be contained in a ''quantum - particle / bit'' ?
Does quantum-particle have a ''bit'' of information ?
============
.

[bangstrom]

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.

I would say the appearance (not necessarily the reality) of an emitter and an absorber calls for the invention of a photon for purposes of explanation and I agree that the zero time separation between emission and absorption implies that the photon does not have time to exist. Neither does the EM wave.

If the absorption is in the emitter’s future, this presents two problems. First it suggests that energy can exist separate from matter and secondly that energy can vanish into space in an apparent violation of the conservation of energy and I don’t find either explanation satisfactory or necessarily evident from experiment.

If an an electron in one atom drops to a lower energy level at the precise instant that an electron in another atom rises to a higher energy level and the amount of energy is the same for both, we might conclude that an emission and absorption of energy has taken place even though the two events are unrelated. However a random event such as this would be indistinguishable from what we call light.

It is my view that light is just such an event except that it is not random or unrelated. With light, we have a transaction between two atoms on the same light cone, that is simultaneous, and there is no need for energy to pass through the space between since the energy exchange involves an electron in one atom dropping to a lower energy level as an electron in the other rises to a higher energy level. This explanation does not require either photons or energy moving through space.

QM does not require a physical connection between remote particles for one particle to affect another. This is known as entanglement and entanglement involves an exquisite degree of phase matching between the quantum states of the coupled particles. The connection is wavelike and the probability of two atoms exchanging a quantum of energy is greatest where the quantum waves interfere constructively so light appears in wavelike patterns as if deposited by a greater wave. This “greater wave” is the static EM wave pattern generated by absorption among entangled particles and not a wave moving through space. Both photons and EM waves are redundant to this explanation.

The time delay we observe in light related events is linearly proportional to the distance between them and the proportionality constant is called the “speed of light.”

[bangstrom]

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 but is an EM wave energy itself or a carrier for energy? And, there is the old question, ‘If EM is a wave, what is waving?’

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.

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]

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

Then you see wrong. 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.

but is an EM wave energy itself or a carrier for energy?

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.

And, there is the old question, ‘If EM is a wave, what is waving?’

That is indeed a VERY VERY OLD question that scientist do not automatically ask of all waves anymore because it only applies to kinetic waves (though according to one interpretation of quantum physics it could be said to consist of a virtual particles waving). Instead 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. It is a nice clear classical picture of what is going on. And yet underneath all such classical pictures is a reality composed of fermionic and bosonic quantized fields.

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.

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.

Visualization is a useful tool in science as long as one does not confuse them with reality itself.

[bangstrom]

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. Too wonder-full to believe. Too wander-full to believe.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Huh? It is a matter of accuracy and what the evidence shows. Your feelings and artistic appraisals are irrelevant.

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.

In other words, you didn't understand anything I wrote, and don't even care to try.

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.

No that is not what I was referring to with the word "metaphor." 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 was talking about the idea of light being prescient or aware. Of course, it is no such thing.

[bangstrom]

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.

In other words, you didn't understand anything I wrote, and don't even care to try.

That's right. I didn't understand a thing you said. Your comment above mentions how light does not get from here to there. There is not a croûton in your salad that mentions how it does. Am I wrong? 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?

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.

And, you said, "So in the sciences things don't carry energy any more than people have or carry bodies." WTF?

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.

btw, I will be off line for about a week.

[mitchellmckain]

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.

Very well... Let's try that again. I understood the issue to be a contention be between these propositions.
1. Everything is composed of energy and this includes light.
2. Things like light simply carry energy.
My argument was to explain why 1 is correct and 2 is wrong.

To recap: If light is simply carrying energy then it would not disappear when the energy is all delivered. But since it disappears when all the energy is delivered then this tells us that the light is composed of the energy which it delivered. This is, in fact, the case with EVERYTHING. Take away all the energy something has and nothing is left -- it ceases to exist and nothing remains. Thus we know that everything is composed of energy and energy is the very substance of being for all things in the universe.

Your comment above mentions how light does not get from here to there.

Incorrect. My comment above says no such thing. Nor do I see how you can even read this into it.

There is not a croûton in your salad that mentions how it does. Am I wrong?

Since everything is energy, everything must carry energy in that sense. But the word "carry" is misleading because it is not in the sense that a person carries a ball. Instead it is more like how a person carries their body wherever they go, because as far as science can tell, they are their body and without their body they do not exist.

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?

That's right, light is not a little person running around carrying energy like it is a ball, message, or something to be delivered. Instead, light is a form of energy consisting of a propagation of electric and magnetic fields continuously creating each other according to Maxwell's equations. What are the similarities with ocean waves so that we call this a wave also? In the case of an ocean wave it is the forces of gravity and boyancy which cause the crest of a wave to fall while pushing the adjacent water up. These are conservative forces so the potential energy for the next crest must come from the previous crest and thus energy travels with crest.

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.

The term "light energy" means that the energy is in the form of light which means it is one or more photons, which means it is an electromagnet wave -- these three things are equivalent. If all the energy is "delivered" or absorbed as in the case of pushing the electron of an atom to a higher energy state then the photon (i.e. EM wave) ceases to exist and the energy is no longer "light energy" but the chemical potential energy of the excited electron. This is in fact the whole point. We have energy changing from one form to another: light, heat, matter, motion, and potential energy. And all these different forms of energy are everything which the universe contains.

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.

The "pilot wave theory" was first proposed and then discarded by DeBroglie because inconsistent with relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. That basic failure of the idea hasn't changed.

[Faradave]

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.

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.

I love photon torpedoes as much as the next Trekkie, but in physics, I believe the photon model raises more questions than it answers. Inasmuch as time is a legitimate separator of events, it also provides for contact (zero separation). The minus sign in the interval equation reveals a great abundance of such contacts beyond classical (where ∆t=0). I illustrate these in the "Contact Sport" video above.

Since non-classical (or "remote") contacts are future directed, they obviate pilot waves, while fulfilling their function. Contact is mutual. Light transmission implies both emitter and (future) absorber.

[mitchellmckain]

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.

By which you mean, such a sense of inconsistency is found in the back of your own mind. I would beware of projecting such feelings upon reality and other people if I were you.

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.

But you are just imagining the end of a limit which we have no reason to believe has a basis in reality. There is no such things as the rest frame of a photon outside of speculative imagination. And even if there were, it represents nothing more than a particular way of looking at things which in no way can be presumed to be some kind of superior way of looking at things. Besides, 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. That by itself should make you wonder why that somewhat arbitrary view of the universe should be considered especially revealing.

I love photon torpedoes as much as the next Trekkie,

And I love stories about fairies, mermaids, norse/egyptian gods, xmen, and vampires, but as much as they make fun stories they haven't any basis in physical reality. Star Trek and Star Wars with their go-out-to-explore-the-galaxy-and-be-back-in-time-for-dinner hyperspace drives and galaxy wide empires are just another fantasy. Technobabble is the new abracadabra used to distract our eye/thoughts so we can suspend our disbelief enough to engage with the narrative.

but in physics, I believe the photon model raises more questions than it answers.

Of course it does. Giving us the means to ask thousands of times as many questions as before is what science does. It is religion which seeks to silence our questions. Nevertheless the photon and all the rest of the Standard model agrees superbly with the objective evidence.

Light transmission implies both emitter and (future) absorber.

No it does not. Not only can you imagine a universe with only a photon but you can set up a situation in which a photon travels endlessly. In fact in the endlessly expanding universe in which we live that is exactly what most photons do. As I explained before light does not objectively imply emitter and absorber any more than the universe implies a creator.

As much as the zero interval suggests this to you, this is an entirely subjective impression of a purely mathematical construct, it provides no more reasonable expectation for my agreement than if I started spouting Christian theology at you.

[Faradave]

Thanks for the reply MM. Time is valuable. I appreciate it.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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. Direct contact bypassing space and time is reasonably described as via wormhole. Check out "The 'Hole' Shebang" below for details.

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?

[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 .

[mitchellmckain]

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.

Since your thoughts and feelings are derived from premises of subjective origins which I need not accept, what you say here is outrageously patronizing and ultimately unreasonable.

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.

This is science not religion. Your quotations prove nothing.

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.

This is pure nonsense! The existence of the photon is demonstrable and part of the world we measure and experience. It is the bizarre reduction of reality to an imagined rest frame of the photon which exists only in imagination.

"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

Once again you are taking anthropomorphizing metaphors literally. All we really have (i.e. know for sure because we can measure them) is 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. While we can imagine someone traveling at the speed of light and thus not aging as it does so, we also know this is actually impossible. It is correct to say that the photon has no proper time, but then this simply follows from the fact that no rest frame exists.

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.

And "conventional space-time" is what we experience and measure -- this is reality and not simply some imagined theoretical construct.

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.

It means that 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 because of the structure of the Minkowsky structure of space-time.

Looking at things from different perspectives is a tool which physicists use. Talk by the non-scientist about which perspective is the correct one is meaningless to them. Thus the point of going from Ptolemy to Copernicus was not really about finding the correct model of the solar system. What Ptolemy drew was an accurate representation of what the stars and planets do in the sky of earth. It is just that looking a things from the perspective of the sun at the center is also a valuable way of looking at things. Non-scientists have a tendency to argue over a lot of meaningless distinctions as far as the scientists are concerned.

Direct contact bypassing space and time is reasonably described as via wormhole. Check out "The 'Hole' Shebang" below for details.

No that is outrageously incorrect. Wormholes are something entirely different based on a scientific description by Einstein and Rosen and is thus also call an Einstein-Rosen bridge. This does not mean that such things can or do exist but only that GR theoretical framework can describe such things -- the point being this is something completely different than what light does.

But what is correct is that traveling near the speed of light is very much like the warp speed of science fiction, bringing the points of space closer together (Lorentz contraction) so the distance may be traveled as quickly as you would like (the limiting process being instantaneous travel of light itself). What science fiction gets wrong is that to everyone else not on their ship, they are traveling less than the speed of light so it takes a long time to arrive at their destination.

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?

Incorrect. Scientists do not limit their knowledge and conclusions only to the measured data. If that is all they did then they would never be more than mindless record keepers. Scientists use the measured data as means to make conclusions about what is never measured.

[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 .

You can have no reasonable expectation that I should accept the truth or meaning of such subjective philosophical assertions. Like I said, it would be no different than if began spouting Christian theology at you.

[socrat44]

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 .

another view . . .
@Faradave
yours two formulas are very nice
#
one formula ( ∆t=∆x=0) explains situation
when time and space were pressed into
''singular point'' (neither time nor space) . . .
. . . but another formula needs small correlation,
it must be written as
(∆t  ≠ ∆x ≠ 0) the act after explosion of ''singular point'' ,
it means ''big bang'' (time and space appeared separately)

somebody had written thick book to explain the ''big bang''
but thanks to you we can understand this theory
only by two simple formulas
#
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]

Once again you are taking anthropomorphizing metaphors literally.

Sorry about that... It was thinking of something bangstrom said earlier in the thread.

[mitchellmckain]

#
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]

#
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 the ''interval of space-time traveled by light -- '' is zero (0)
then all physical parameters are zero and cannot be observed.

[socrat44]

#
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

[mitchellmckain]

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

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.

[Faradave]

your thoughts and feelings are derived from premises of subjective origins

I beg to differ (see below), but not to the point of being completely annoying. This is an ad lib, academic exercise.

what you say here is outrageously patronizing

Acknowledgment of you obvious intellect was intended sincerely. If it helps, I also find you to be rigid (even catatonic) and habitually condescending. I find the latter a small price to pay for the former.

[My claims of spacetime distortion.] Your quotations prove nothing.

Rindler, a recognized authority on Relativity wrote, "... the best we can do for figures in Minkowski space[time] is to map them on to Euclidean space, as did Mercator with his flat map of the curved surface of the earth. Such maps necessarily distort metric relations and one has to compensate for this distortion."

No worldline, no particle. Any apparent span of a lightlike worldline on a spacetime diagram is purely distortion.

This is not my imagination, nor in any way a misrepresentation. Distortion is widely recognized as unavoidable in mapping any non-Euclidean (i.e. non-flat) surface on onto a flat one. My interval-time coordinates are offer the needed compensation. ...You're welcome!

The existence of the photon is demonstrable and part of the world we measure and experience.

I realize the photon model is a longstanding and cherished one. My model is still better because it's simpler. All the particle aspects of light are explicable by direct, physical contact. Denial is a failure of your imagination not mine.

If you grasp geometry at all (and you do), you must admit that 4D supplies geometrically more contact pathways (think radii of a sphere) than 3D, just as a sphere offers more paths to its center than a circle. So, where are they? They're lightlike! Because it involves a temporal dimension, this contact is velocity dependent. Entirely consistent with observation. Not such a big deal. S-t-r-e-t-c-h a little, it feels good.

It is the bizarre reduction of reality to an imagined rest frame of the photon which exists only in imagination.

Recall that I acknowledged that light has no rest frame in spacetime. What's bizarre is imagining a particle with no rest frame! No worldline, no rest frame, no particle.

In another thread, I once referred to a "rest frame" for light, which might be distracting you. It would be one with all invariant coordinates. For example, absolute future on the vertical (this is the same as the age of the cosmos starting from here, now) and intervals instead of space on the horizontal. Light would then be seen as a vertical line from its emitter, consistent with a "rest frame" as light certainly gets to the future but with zero interval displacement. To be sure, this is not a "spacetime" rest frame and is thus not inconsistent with Relativity. Ignore it if it's too distracting.

Invariant coordinates reveal a rest frame for light (albeit not a spacetime one) depicting emission event e and absorption event a. Interval speeds are also absolute.

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.

Actually, it does! The referenced limit (as v-->c) is a two-tailed and continuous. That is, it is the same approached from subluminal or superluminal velocities, regardless of our ability to attain those velocities. In calculus that makes the limit real. Of course unimpeded light propagates at precisely c, not in some limiting case near c. This is agreed by all observers.

"conventional space-time" is what we experience and measure

This is an understandable and cozy illusion. What we experience is from the past as bounded by our past light cones. What experiences us, is similarly bounded by our future light cones. We are in fact, profoundly isolated from our own spatial simultaneities which are "elsewhere" to us.

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

Not even close. You're pushing too far here. The finiteness of light speed is critical into too many ways to mention (and this thread is getting long).

Wormholes are something entirely different based on a scientific description by Einstein and Rosen and is thus also call an Einstein-Rosen bridge.

You might want to search "ER=EPR" and "Wheeler wormholes". The point is that there can be more than one kind of wormhole. The pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) I describe is by far, the most abundant. They won't go away just because you fail to acknowledge them. If Lorentzian path contraction (to zero) bothers you, rely instead on the minus sign in the interval (d) equations. e.g. ∆d² = ∆x² - ∆t². I'm sure you realize that a lightlike interval separation is defined as zero. Now all that you and other smart people have to do is figure out what "zero separation" means. It shouldn't be too hard. Just remember that it can be zero even when ∆x and ∆t are not (so long as ∆t=∆x).

My interval-time coordinates are as legitimate as the algebraic rearrangement of the interval equation (to ∆x² = ∆t² + ∆d²). It discredits you to refer to these as "subjective imaginings".

As space and time become equal, interval separation vanishes to zero, defining a lightlike interval. This is depicted without distortion in interval time coordinates. A light quantum thus bypasses spatial and temporal spans of indefinite span via direct interval contact!

Scientists use the measured data as means to make conclusions about what is never measured.

Again, exactly correct. Since every documented transmission of a light quantum has both emitter and absorber, good scientists should project that to be the case, even for those emitted light quanta which have not yet revealed their absorbers. Weather they do or not is unfortunately left to human nature.

[mitchellmckain]

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.

So.... One way this could be understood is that in the limiting case of inertial frames going to the speed of light in one direction where the universe is squashed flat in that direction as well as in time there is no EM wave or photon and no energy delivered because the energy wouldn't actually go anywhere anyway. The energy is already at the destination. Thus we only have EM waves/photons to make this space-time transfer of energy when there is such a space-time interval to be crossed. Seems to me this completely agrees with and reinforces my argument that the photon/EM wave is the energy itself -- remove the need for such a form of energy to cross the space-time interval and you remove the photon/EM wave also.

But again, looking at things from different frameworks/perspectives is part of the methodology of physics and the reality is not one perspective but all of them collectively. So it is absurd to think that because something doesn't exist in one of these perspectives then that means the thing doesn't at all. And let's remember the original quesion, which was, what particle is needed for an EM wave? The answer remains that the only necessary particle is the photon because the photon and the EM wave are the same thing. The fact that the photon/EM wave vanishes in limiting case of inertial frames going to the speed of light in one direction, only reinforces this conclusion also.