martillo

So summaryzing, cryptocoins have real value zero, their energy consumption could worm up the planet in 2ºC and we all will pay more for our needed energy. Nice deal...

I want both... 😄

As I commented It's a matter of market and economy, I know, but as joigus commented those bills could affect otherones' bills, may be everyones' bills. For me is just curiosity now to know who really consumes all that amount of energy as an entire country...

Sure not. Surelly I would prefer dying...

You see, each one can put own values on different things. But there are social averages for more global valuing. I don't think cryptocoins is a bad idea, I think is a good one, but it could bring costs and they don't seem neglihible. Seems like a bubble now, may be it falls in some amount later but I think it came to stay.

Personally I don't use cryptocoins but the international market and economy, who knows?

Sure, nothing free at the end...

Yes, the costs could be hiding and they would be not neglihible, the energy of an entire country! And there's the contribution to the global worming too. All that energy is dissipated someway...

Servers farms for cryptocoins? Lot of money involved then...

But so huge amount of energy couldn't be concentrated in some few servers, I think. The energy spended by the users would be taken into account and be a large part of the total energy calculation, or not? The question would be then how the total consumed energy is calculated to state that cryptocoins consume as much energy as an entire country...

But who are the miners then? How they get the money to pay the energy?

It must be like that. Distributed among the users, if not it wouldn't work...

I don't know well how cryptocoins work. It is said they spend so much energy as an entire country. The question is who pays such energy?

For instance, if photons could be modeled as "wave-packets", as Duda Jarek has suggested as a possible one, they would exhibit a periodicity and would have phase. But it demands some "E/M structure" for them which unavoidably present shape and size. They could not be modeled as a "point-like" particle or am I wrong in this?

Yes, some times they diffract producing the observed diffraction patterns. For instance in a double slit experiment if two photons surge in phase, one from each slit, they will interfere at the detector depending in the phase they meet just following the Huygens principle. This perfectly explain the wave-like behavior of photons' particles. What remains is to show how particles exhibit phase. That, I agree, demands a structure for the particles which is the main question asked in this thread, I mean, which would be the shape and size of a photon...

Heated filaments have been used as source of particles, photons or electrons, and the heating was attenuated until single events are observed in the experiments but this does not guarantee that a unique atom of the filament has emitted a particle. It is possible that multiple atoms of the filaments emit single particles each but in total many particles could have been emitted quite at the same time producing at the end a group of particles travelling together.

I wouldn't be so sure...

I don't find that attenuating the source until single events like sparkings do really guarantee the emission of single photons or electrons. That was what has been done in the past, I know, but I disagree. In the link you provided of wikipedia it is said: "a true single-photon source was not created in isolation until 1974. This was achieved by utilising a cascade transition within mercury atoms." and "Another single-photon source came in 1977 which utilised the fluorescence from an attenuated beam of sodium atoms." Consider that for instance Young's double slit experiment was performed in 1801 assuming the emission of single photons. Mach–Zehnder experiment in 1892. The question now is how many experiments currently considered have taken this into account...

Several experiments assume the emission of single photons or electrons. Something very difficult to guarantee in practice. I mean, how to distinguish between short trains of particles emitted in spite of single ones? Not so easy...

Well, seems here is a case where different interpretations can be given to a same experiment. All what I can say is that my point of view can give an interpretation without a "pilot wave" guiding it but assuming the presence of many photons in the phenomenon.

I still don't get it or you are not getting my point now. In those experiments even if there were single photons travelling at a run they collect progresive data of many runs. The resultant graph is made with the data of all the runs collected corresponding to many photons, not just one. The graph would be the distribution of the arriving data of many photons, not the amplitude of some property of just one. I mean, the graph corresponds to the statistics of the behavior of many photons not the structure of just one. The graph could give some clue about the structure of the photon but it is not a "photograph" of it. May be someone more knowledgeable could help us more in this...

I think there's a confusion in the interpretation of the results in the experiments you mention. I interpret the patterns in the receivers of the experiments as obtained by a progressive distribution of the places where the sucessive photons arrive. I mean that the graphs are not the amplitude of a "pilot wave" of a single photon but the distribution of the density on the places where many photons arrive. You say for the colored tridimensional graph: "there are e.g. these experiments measuring averaged trajectories of interfering photons:" and the heigh in the graph is said to represent the "probability density" of photons. For me this apply for many photons arriving, not single ones.

I'm still analyzing the experiments you mention but I must point out that much care must be taken in considering if they are about beams of light composed of, let me say, short "trains" of electrons or individual single photons. They are two very different things. Seems you are talking about single photons while the experiments mention beams of light. Am I wrong?

The photon is treated as a point-like particle in Particle Physics as all elementary particles are treated. They have no structure, shape and size. At wikipedia's photon page (Photon - Wikipedia) can be found in the "Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles" section the following: "However, experiments confirm that the photon is not a short pulse of electromagnetic radiation; it does not spread out as it propagates, nor does it divide when it encounters a beam splitter.[62] Rather, the photon seems to be a point-like particle since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, including systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (≈10−15 m across) or even the point-like electron." This way, the works trying to find shape and size of photons you have mentioned would go in the direction of the development of a new theory in Physics and that's why I got interested in this thread. I think that is the right direction of development in particle Physics, to give structures to the particles, but this is not treated in current Physics. By the way, I'm one working in this direction but finding hard troubles to present my point of view in good Physics' environments like this Forum. It always end in the Speculations' or even Trash sub-forums... P:S: Wish good luck for you in your research.

Infinity was already unravelled in the development of series, limits, integrals, etc. in Calculus and you have also Proyective Geometry treating it. What else do you want to know about infinity? May be you gave up on this. Others didn't. Seems you are taking Philosophy it in a rather not rigourous way. Logic is as rigorous as Math.