Conservation of Photons?

[Tom Vose]

A photon's energy does not depend on the speed. Under what context are you claiming variable photon speed?

 

I never said that. Please recall what i said.

 

Let me just add, that Klaynos is right. A speed has no direct equivalance to energy, but the energy content can be equivlized to a change in the speed of an object due to distortions in space, and thus time, which has a noticable difference in the energy used by a system.

 

(Sorry... Swansont i mean... not Klaynos...)

[swansont]

You never said "Variable photon energy has to be... if it was not, variable photon paths in variable speeds would not hold" ?

 

Seems to me you are saying that variable energy is a requirement for variable speed.

 

Again, under what context are you saying that a photon has variable speed?

[Tom Vose]

you said a photon was the smallest unit of energy, not that it was variable.

 

as it is variable it is not always the smallest. and as it is variable, it is possible to split a photon into two(or more) photons of lesser energy, the sum of which would be the energy of the origional photon.

 

Lol... I am very sorry,

 

Could you please explain or iterate how the smallest thing cannot have a wave length?

 

You do realize that [[every object]] in the world is modelled against wave distribution.

[Mr Skeptic]

Or, we could just ignore you since you make no sense. Do you even understand English?

[Tom Vose]

Also, Swansont,

 

you said, ''Seems to me you are saying that variable energy is a requirement for variable speed.

 

Again, under what context are you saying that a photon has variable speed?''

 

Actually this very year i have proposed that a change in energy is not equivalnt to a change in speed, however, can be relted through a single dimension.

 

Or, we could just ignore you since you make no sense. Do you even understand English?

 

I find that very rude

[Klaynos]

Also, Swansont,

 

you said, ''Seems to me you are saying that variable energy is a requirement for variable speed.

 

Again, under what context are you saying that a photon has variable speed?''

 

Actually this very year i have proposed that a change in energy is not equivalnt to a change in speed, however, can be relted through a single dimension.

 

You don't appear to have answered his question.

[Pangloss]

Please remember to be polite, folks. Thanks.

[Tom Vose]

thanks

[foodchain]

Lol... I am very sorry,

 

Could you please explain or iterate how the smallest thing cannot have a wave length?

 

You do realize that [[every object]] in the world is modelled against wave distribution.

 

I dont know whats going on but I will try.

 

Wave model = describes everything

 

Photon = energy

 

energy = wave model

 

so would you being saying that the photon is the most smallest thing in regards to what?

 

I think that decay can result in photons right, I get hung up on if thats that bottom of decay, as electrons decay or decay for that particle or what not ends at photons, do photons decay?

 

Is it that photons don't decay?

Edited December 14, 2008 by foodchain
it for is

[insane_alien]

Lol... I am very sorry,

 

Could you please explain or iterate how the smallest thing cannot have a wave length?

 

You do realize that [[every object]] in the world is modelled against wave distribution.

 

i never said anything about wavelength. what the hell are you on about.

[swansont]

Actually this very year i have proposed that a change in energy is not equivalnt to a change in speed, however, can be relted through a single dimension.

 

 

No need for you to propose it, since it's been a part of physics for more than 100 years.

 

Now how about answering the question?

[north]

Originally Posted by Tom Vose

Actually this very year i have proposed that a change in energy is not equivalnt to a change in speed, however, can be relted through a single dimension.

 

No need for you to propose it, since it's been a part of physics for more than 100 years.

 

Now how about answering the question?

 

a single dimension can explain all this ?

 

both of you explain

[Tom Vose]

The time dimension is what relates them, but they are not ever equal to.

[YT2095]

The time dimension is what relates them, but they are not ever equal to.

 

that`s nice dear, now how about answering the question you were asked

[Pangloss]

thanks

 

You're welcome, but you haven't exactly been completely polite either, and if you make a rash or conjectural statement and refuse to back it up around here we call that trolling, because our purpose is accuracy, not opinion. Please behave accordingly. Thanks.

[truedeity]

I think, If light were not a particle, but rather a frequency/wave and you appealed to Max Plank vs. Einstine you could concieve this idea in a Black Hole. eg. F=Hz...

[Severian]

The time dimension is what relates them, but they are not ever equal to.

 

That isn't even a sentence.

[Klaynos]

I think, If light were not a particle, but rather a frequency/wave and you appealed to Max Plank vs. Einstine you could concieve this idea in a Black Hole. eg. F=Hz...

 

Light isn't a particle, nor a wave, photons are something else...

[Tom Vose]

That isn't even a sentence.

 

Time is a dimension. It's actually a spatial dimension, that seems to be very temporal. This is why we call it the imaginary space dimension.

 

Now, we can have speed and changes in Eigenstates (in a physical system) where people like to equate change (and acceleration, which is a change in speed) to the time dimension, but this is erreneous.

 

Time does not equal speed, nor does it equal a change in physical systems, but they can be related to time, such as a distortion in the fabric, like contraction of space and distortion of time.

[truedeity]

Correction. A Photon is a particle, an "Elementary Partcile" which is a sutbstrucutre for all other particles.

 

All I am asking is that we think alittle outside of the box. We really do not know what anything is. Most of our understanding of the cosmos is based on hubble photos and imagination. I am not insulting established sciences, however, its been a long time since we have questioned what light is.

 

I am not saying that it is what I described. All that I said, is that if it were something else "xyz -frequency/wave?" i can only imagine the anomoloie occuring in a Black Hole.

 

If light is what it is understood to be now. It can not occur. Try to find an explantion for a Black Holes death ray? From what I understand theres nothing in science established to support it. (If you goto cnn.com and search for "black hole death ray" you will find it.)

[swansont]

Correction. A Photon is a particle, an "Elementary Partcile" which is a sutbstrucutre for all other particles.

 

If you are claiming that the photon is the substructure for other particles, the answer is no. This is not the speculations forum. You are expected to respond with established physics here.

 

All I am asking is that we think alittle outside of the box. We really do not know what anything is. Most of our understanding of the cosmos is based on hubble photos and imagination. I am not insulting established sciences, however, its been a long time since we have questioned what light is.

 

Actually "we" do have some understanding of what some things are, or more to the point, how some things behave. Someone built your computer, for instance, which is not a trivial task that could be accomplished without some understanding of science. And though it wasn't your intent, implying otherwise is a bit insulting.

 

 

I am not saying that it is what I described. All that I said, is that if it were something else "xyz -frequency/wave?" i can only imagine the anomoloie occuring in a Black Hole.

 

If light is what it is understood to be now. It can not occur. Try to find an explantion for a Black Holes death ray? From what I understand theres nothing in science established to support it. (If you goto cnn.com and search for "black hole death ray" you will find it.)

 

It's easy enough to provide a link (copy and paste), and it's your responsibility to do so. The first link I found in doing that search was "Oklahoma City bombing trial"

 

Absent that, there is no basis for discussion. And popular media doesn't have a stellar track record for reporting science.

[truedeity]

If you are claiming that the photon is the substructure for other particles, the answer is no. This is not the speculations forum. You are expected to respond with established physics here.

 

Reply:

I'm sorry if I do not understand. However, when I refer to the Standard Model of Elementary Particles illustrating three generations of matter a photon is part of the Boson Forces. There are also Quarks, and Leptons. Elementary Partiles do not have a substructure and is apart of the basic building blocks of the universe, from which all particles are made.

 

 

Im not insulting the genius and advent of science and or depths of human imagination.

 

Here is a link to the infamous, "Death Ray".

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/12/22/2007-12-22_scientists_find_black_hole_death_ray.html

[swansont]

I'm sorry if I do not understand. However, when I refer to the Standard Model of Elementary Particles illustrating three generations of matter a photon is part of the Boson Forces. There are also Quarks, and Leptons. Elementary Partiles do not have a substructure and is apart of the basic building blocks of the universe, from which all particles are made.

 

The photon is one of the exchange particles responsible for forces (specifically, the electromagnetic force). This does not make it a constituent of matter.

[Tom Vose]

Correction. A Photon is a particle, an "Elementary Partcile" which is a sutbstrucutre for all other particles.

 

All I am asking is that we think alittle outside of the box. We really do not know what anything is. Most of our understanding of the cosmos is based on hubble photos and imagination. I am not insulting established sciences, however, its been a long time since we have questioned what light is.

 

I am not saying that it is what I described. All that I said, is that if it were something else "xyz -frequency/wave?" i can only imagine the anomoloie occuring in a Black Hole.

 

If light is what it is understood to be now. It can not occur. Try to find an explantion for a Black Holes death ray? From what I understand theres nothing in science established to support it. (If you goto cnn.com and search for "black hole death ray" you will find it.)

 

There is no correction to what i said.

[truedeity]

A photon is considered an elementary particle.