morp's "Photons do not Exist" claim

[morp]

Photons do not exist

Litterature gives a single "proof" of their existence:the foto-electric effect.

If this effect existed really , it would not prove the existence of photons.

But the so called photoelectric effect is a thermal effect dependeing only on temperature.

The "foto-electric effect"occurs also in complete darkness.

See Nobel prize winner Richardson. who left a formula ( from about 1900 ) for the ionic emission

 

Morp

[Klaynos]

The quantisation of light, therefore the realisation of photons is a well understood and tested phenomena, the photoelectric effect is an example of one bit of evidence there is significantly more than this.

 

The photo electric effect does not occur in "complete darkness" and by that I mean shielding 100% of all photons of all energies.

 

Please keep to accepted physics in the physics forums and everything else in Pseudoscience and Speculations.

[morp]

The Physics of Aristotle and Ptolemaios are, or were, "Accepted physics"

All known phenomena can be explained by traditional, normal, physics.

But many cannot be explained by "Accepted physics"

What is ,for exemple ,the difference between green photons and red photons ?

By traditional physics it is quite simple,it is a matter of frequency,4 Ghz for green

3Ghz for red.

And by "Accepted Physics" ???

For most chemical elements atomic structures and atomic spectra are known.

By normal physics the spectrum of an atom can be deduced from its structure and vice versa.. No one can do that by "Accepted physics"

 

It is a physical reality dat light is an E.M. wave an that Photons never existed not now and not in the time of Aristotele

 

Morp

[Klaynos]

The Physics of Aristotle and Ptolemaios are, or were, "Accepted physics"

All known phenomena can be explained by traditional, normal, physics.

But many cannot be explained by "Accepted physics"

What is ,for exemple ,the difference between green photons and red photons ?

By traditional physics it is quite simple,it is a matter of frequency,4 Ghz for green

3Ghz for red.

And by "Accepted Physics" ???

For most chemical elements atomic structures and atomic spectra are known.

By normal physics the spectrum of an atom can be deduced from its structure and vice versa.. No one can do that by "Accepted physics"

 

It is a physical reality dat light is an E.M. wave an that Photons never existed not now and not in the time of Aristotele

 

Morp

 

The emission spectrum of an atom can be found using accepted physics using quantum mechanics. I'm not sure what you mean by normal physics and accepted physice being different.

 

Whether you like the fact that photons exist or not. They do there is significant evidence for the quantisation of EM radiation.

 

Your frequencies are off a bit IIRC visible light is in the hundreds of THz.

[mooeypoo]

Off topic speculative pseudophysics subject moved to its own thread in pseudoscience and speculation forum, at least until it is proven to fit back into mainstream general physics forum.

 

Please keep it here.

~moo

[swansont]

Note that morp's Nature of Light thread is currently on-topic and well within accepted physics, by approaching the question from a different angle, so interested parties should go there.

[mooeypoo]

Perfect

 

Also, please note - the Pseudoscience / Speculations forum isn't some punishment zone that "non acomplished" theories go to. It is merely the place for people to argue the validity of their theory, speculate on different applications of it, and perhaps justify it being back in mainstream forum.

 

The fact this thread is in pseudoscience/spec doesn't make it any less worthy of debate. Of course, if the question was posed differently and in a way that does fit current science, then by all means, the other thread is yet another venue for this discussion.

 

 

 

~moo