![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot » October 24th, 2019, 3:24 am wrote:
Assuming that light is not a continuous ‘wave’ from source to absorption, it must consist of one or more electromagnetic energy spurts, which we can call photons.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot » October 24th, 2019, 9:47 am wrote:To assume that 'light is a continuous wave' is to assume that light is connected to the source no matter how many times it is refracted and/or reflected. Could you please explain your rationale for assuming this to be the case.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bangstrom wrote "By assuming that light is discontinuous, you have reached the conclusion that photons exist and given them properties not supported by observation "
Bangstrom wrote "Refraction, reflection, and interference are properties of continuous waves"
Faradave wrote "Feynman does a heroic (and Nobel winning) job of explaining refraction, reflection and interference in terms of photons."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot » October 24th, 2019, 10:04 pm wrote: Also when I look at a lighthouse with a revolving light (there are still a few in commission), if light were continuous from source (i.e. connected to the source) why isn't the light bent as the source moves and appear more like a Catherine wheel? Think about it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » 25 Oct 2019, 05:57 wrote:In theory a light beam does bend whether a wave or a particle but the propagation of light is too fast to observe the curvature.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 25th, 2019, 11:11 am wrote:
Well, this depends on how you define a light beam, how you observe it and from which coordinate system you watch it. I think that in free and clean space (no dust particles to reflect some part of the beam), it will only be 'curving' in the rotating reference frame of the light beacon. In the inertial frames of both lighthouse and observer, it will be gun-barrel straight.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » 25 Oct 2019, 22:45 wrote:It depends on how you define “observe”. A light beam with nothing to reflect its path can not be observed from any reference frame.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » 25 Oct 2019, 22:39 wrote:Yup. I think of paint drops flying straight off a spin art plate. There are no curved forces.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan wrote...
'Faradave » 25 Oct 2019, 22:39 wrote:
'Yup. I think of paint drops flying straight off a spin art plate. There are no curved forces.'
If you are an observer sitting on the axis and spinning with the plate, then in your rotating frame the paint drops will trace curves, just like light beams for a for a lighthouse observer turning with the reflector.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » October 23rd, 2019, 11:13 pm wrote:
As far as I am aware, mainstream physics still adheres to the belief in the existence of photons. It would be interesting to hear a defence of the established view, with reasoned rebuttals of the specific arguments of revisionists.
Is there any way of conclusively proving or disproving the existence of photons as particles in motion?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot » October 26th, 2019, 12:17 am wrote:
What I suggested to counter Bangstrom's claim that a light rays are continuous from source (i.e. connected to the source) to where it might be detected or absorbed (let's say by the eye of a beholder). For a spinning light source (e.g. lighthouse light) the moment that the ray leaves the filament its source would have moved on (i.e. be pointing in another direction). Thus the light ray would be immediately disconnected from its source and be photon-like UNLESS it becomes bent, which it doesn't.
It would be nice to move onto some real issues related to the nature and form of light without becoming bogged down and side-tracked with trivia.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Reg_Prescott » October 26th, 2019, 8:24 am wrote:
Hello Positor,
It seems to me, without even delving into the minutiae of photon theory (which I'd be incompetent to do anyway), the standard antirealist arguments for the status of unobservable entities posited in scientific theories apply, viz., we have very good reasons for believing that photons do not exist.
A salutary reminder....
"Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge." -- J. C. Maxwell
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » October 27th, 2019, 5:55 am wrote:It has been said that Einstein’s SR and the Michaelson Morley experiment MM-X did away with the old concept of the aether but Einstein replaced the aether with spacetime in his GR. The difference between the aether and Einstein’s spacetime is that the former causes photons to drift from their normal straight-line path but spacetime does not. The null result of the MM-X demonstrated that either the aether doesn’t exist or photons don’t exist since the aether can’t effect the path of a nonexistent particle.
As J. J. Thomson said as late as 1909, "The ether is not a fantastic creation of the speculative philosopher; it is as essential to us as the air we breathe. . . . The study of this all-pervading substance is perhaps the most fascinating and important duty of the physicists"
-- The Advancement of Science and its Burdens, Holton, p79
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Reg_Prescott wrote:As a side note on so-called crucial experiments, we often hear it claimed, for example, that the MM experiment definitively refuted the existence of the aether. History tells quite a different story...
As historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. As Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 28th, 2019, 1:37 am wrote:It definitely refuted the original "luminiferous aether", ]
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot wrote:annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of a pair of gamma rays with 0.511 MeV energy each, that shoot off in opposite directions. Assuming that you consider, as for all EMR, the gamma radiation to be a continuous wave, how do you visualize or explain the transformation at the point of impact?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 28th, 2019, 1:51 pm wrote:
No, rather give us links to the reference papers supporting your claim, which seems to be off the mainstream.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests