Itoero

You need observation to get knowledge about physical systems. But especially in quantum systems you can't know if you have the correct logic to correctly interpret the observations. I just think it's important to state that your dealing with observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

It seems to be a fundamental property of how we observe quantum systems.

Spin, momentum and wavelength are (measured) properties of energy. And a photon is always on the move, it only has kinetic energy. You can define energy as the ability to do work (it depends on your interpretation). The ability to do work is stored force. When you excite an atomic electron to a higher energy state, you then increase the stored force (F). F=ma and according to mass-energy equivalence: F=(E/c²)a. By increasing the stored force in an electron, you cause some of it's energy to be accelerated(F=(E/c²)a) which forms a photon. Gluons and photons (massless particles) are imo just energy. A gluon is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles. If you see how photons are formed then you'll see it's a released/exchanged property. I like the comparison with length. But what does it mean that It does not have independent existence? 'Knowledge' does not have independent existence but you can exchange it with other people. You can only observe photons because they 'interact' with particles and they are an exchanged or released property... I don't call that having an independent existence. No. Spin is angular momentum. There's no inherent relationship between the two. No matter what the energy of a photon is, the spin will always be 1. Ok but the spin is imo a property of the kind of energy, not the amount of energy. Angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. The rotational property of a photon does not change due to energy.

The website is going pretty fast for me...for several days now. 'm apparently a bit late to notice it.

A better title would be:"The search for what we call 'truth'."

In optics, the Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem, sometimes referred to as just "extinction theorem", is a theorem that underlies the common understanding of scattering (including refraction, reflection, and diffraction). An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05234

I thought you were a kind person...So now you don't deny that refraction is just a form of scattering?

The interaction light-'gravitational field' is not defined, the interaction light-'particles that form refraction' is defined. There is no point in discussing gravitational lensing in this thread. Again, the interaction light-H2O causes Rayleigh scattering in our atmosphere. When the concentration of H2O rises the scattering causes refraction. Do you deny this? If you deny it, then tell me why.

Yes it does. But it's not surprising that you think that. A gravitational force field exist out of quanta. When light interacts with a force field, the photons scatter....this is gravitational scattering. The graviton is an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. The existence of a graviton is I think not (sufficiently) proven. But that doesn't matter, refraction (this is not gravitational lensing) reflection, diffraction, doppler effect...are abouut observable wave behavior and have its origins in scatteering. I don't understand why you people can't understand this.

The corona of a black hole is assumed to have relativistic electrons which scatter lower energy photons from the thermal spectrum to a higher energy (increase in frequency).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering This might imply light gets blueshifted when it approaches a black hole.

Probably when there was sufficient O2 in our atmosphere...maybe 2.45 billion years ago but the date is not clear.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Why is it not made of energy? Yes but isn't spin a property of energy?

You can excite an atomic electron to a higher energy state. After a while, they come down to their natural energy state (electrons can't stay excited for long). But, the loss of energy needs to be compensated for by a release of energy, which is done in the form of a photon. How is a photon not just energy? In this example the energy that forms a photon was a property of an electron.

You can excite an atomic electron to a higher energy state. After a while, they come down to their natural energy state (electrons can't stay excited for long). But, the loss of energy needs to be compensated for by a release of energy, which is done in the form of a photon. The releasing of the energy goes along with an acceleration which forms a photon.

Then perhaps you should react to what I say. I did not say a photon can be accelerated. A photon is accelerated energy. Something can't have speed if it's not accelerated. Acceleration creates speed. A photon is energy, how is that pop-sci?

Get a grip. It was just something I read on another forum and people seem to agree with it,...so I asked it. That's nonsense. You should try to get out of your classical view of things. In quantum physics, force fields (elektromagnetic and gravitational) are made of particles/quanta. You people deny the quantum world in classically described phenomena.

In such a lens, you have matter between light source and observer. Light interact with the matter. Wave function collapse states the photons interact with particles of the matter...when photons interact with particles, they scatter.

This not just my opinion. Out of papers and discussions I find that the Wikipedia definition is correct. "Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory by one or more paths due to localized non-uniformities in the medium through which they pass." Scattering is about wave and particle behavior. Diffraction, refraction and reflection deal only with waves.

Yes, diffraction and gravitational lensing are due to scattering of the photons of light. Wave function collapse implies a wave can't change course or travel (unless in vacuum) without the interaction of its quanta with the particles of whatever medium it travels in.When quanta interact with particles they scatter.

A high concentration of a certain kind of localized non-uniformities with a different refractive index forms refraction. When light doesn't travel through vacuum the photons interact with other particles which causes scattering. This is what Compton and Rayleigh scattering(there are other kind of scattering) are about....do you deny this?

Is there anything being developed to replace chemotherapy? Many people die because of the treatment (chemo) they get to 'cure' them. People with a recurring cancer are often to weak to survive a new treatment. I found an interesting paper which states that trehalose can induce autophagy in mammalian cells. Trehalose has also been reported to have a cytoprotective effects on cells subjected to various stressors, including oxidative damage, dehydration and temperature changes.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4916512/ This paper talks about trehalose-based compounds as novel inhibitors of cancer cell migration and invasion.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855371 Does something like trehalose hold the promise to develop a chemo-replacement? This article is about an immunotherapy to treat cancer(a Hong Kong cancer therapy).http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2113564/new-cancer-treatment-could-replace-chemotherapy-10 I'm probably wrong but it looks imo that medical science doesn't develop much. It's a billion-dollar cancer treatment industry controlled by the pharmaceutical companies....

Yes...that's the definition of scattering.

That's because refraction, diffraction, reflection, doppler effect are only about observable waves. Scattering is normally about particle behavior but it's also used to describe wave behavior. "Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory by one or more paths due to localized non-uniformities in the medium through which they pass." Scattering is a big word...it refers to particle and wave behavior. Fermat's principle is the principle that the path taken between two points by a ray of light is the path that can be traversed in the least time. It's a ray of light (observable light), it's not about photons. Why outside visible range? You can see how light refracts in water. Ok but there position/direction still decides if they hit a target or not...it's not random. And it doesn't matter, when photons do hit the target, they scatter. Of course it does. But in order to know why refraction is an elastic process you need to study the elastic scattering of the photons. The interaction photons-H2O causes Rayleigh (elastic) scattering in our atmosphere but when the concentration H2O rises (to form liquid water) you don't call the interaction photons-H2O to be scattering anymore...why not?

The light from the rest of the universe hasn't reached us because there is a limit to its speed...c. This is called the particle horizon or cosmic light horizon. It represents the furthest distance from which we can retrieve information from the past, and so defines the observable universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons