C=M+1

[Relative]

We tend to use detectors other than human eyes. Humans are poor measurement systems.

 

The sun is the star, a rather unremarkable one.

Yes we use detectors other than the human eye, yes in deed.

 

However, if light is percieved to reflect of mass so we can visual see it, we would not see the sun.

 

I ask where is the reflection of light on the sun?

[Klaynos]

Yes we use detectors other than the human eye, yes in deed.

 

However, if light is percieved to reflect of mass so we can visual see it, we would not see the sun.

 

I ask where is the reflection of light on the sun?

A reflection isn't required to detect light, but to see something that itself does not radiate at optical frequencies it must reflect light.

 

A lightbulb when turned on, the filament glows it does not reflect light to be seen. The table under the light reflects (I'm using the term reflect in q very broad sense here as this is really scattering) which allows it to be observed.

 

The sun radiates, no reflection required.

[rktpro]

Relative, you must understand dimensional analysis first before you start making formulas(you don't derive).

[Relative]

Relative, you must understand dimensional analysis first before you start making formulas(you don't derive).

agreed

 

Relative, you must understand dimensional analysis first before you start making formulas(you don't derive).

 

 

A reflection isn't required to detect light, but to see something that itself does not radiate at optical frequencies it must reflect light.

 

A lightbulb when turned on, the filament glows it does not reflect light to be seen. The table under the light reflects (I'm using the term reflect in q very broad sense here as this is really scattering) which allows it to be observed.

 

The sun radiates, no reflection required.

Yes I understand the scattering of the light, and the reflection off mass so that we can see it.

 

If this is truly how it is, how can enough light from the reflection of the scattering off mass, possibly return as far as our eyes to see the mass?

 

Why is not said that we see mass, because of an energy build up based on its absorb properties?

 

My example would be a <black tarmac road>, on a hot day the tarmac builds up heat, a refraction is caused, a heat wave can be seen. It is said that the refraction, is gases been heated that causes this refraction.

 

I say this refraction is heat/energy that forces the gases out of the way creating a void of energy.

 

This can also be seen by scuba divers underwater, a refraction ,as two temperatures meet<thermocline>.

[ACG52]

I could feel brain cells dying while I read that.

[swansont]

I say this refraction is heat/energy that forces the gases out of the way creating a void of energy.

 

And you are wrong.

[Relative]

And you are wrong.

Can you explain please why that would be wrong?

 

 

There is no real evidence that I have researched, that backs up the statement that we see objects because of reflection of light off the object.

 

To me the statement is a supposition, I thought science was about facts, if there is a link that provides evidence could you post it please?

[swansont]

Can you explain please why that would be wrong?

 

 

Refraction is not due to a void of energy. The statement is nonsensical from a physics point of view. Energy is not a substance.

 

There is no real evidence that I have researched, that backs up the statement that we see objects because of reflection of light off the object.

 

That would seem to be mainly an issue with you not doing proper research.

 

It really shouldn't be difficult to confirm that we see things because our eyes detect light — turn the lights out and cover the windows, and record how much "mass" you can see. Light gets into our eyes either directly from a source or from reflection. You can study optics for further investigation on how light behaves.

 

[Mellinia]

Basic biology tells us that our eyes see when there is light on our retina. Irregardless whether it is directly or indirectly.
Also, basic biology tells us that our eyes will try(try!) to tune to get enough light to form an image.

agreed

 

 

Yes I understand the scattering of the light, and the reflection off mass so that we can see it.

 

If this is truly how it is, how can enough light from the reflection of the scattering off mass, possibly return as far as our eyes to see the mass?

 

Why is not said that we see mass, because of an energy build up based on its absorb properties?

 

My example would be a <black tarmac road>, on a hot day the tarmac builds up heat, a refraction is caused, a heat wave can be seen. It is said that the refraction, is gases been heated that causes this refraction.

 

I say this refraction is heat/energy that forces the gases out of the way creating a void of energy.

 

This can also be seen by scuba divers underwater, a refraction ,as two temperatures meet<thermocline>.

on a hot day, the heat wave you see, is the blurry image formed as light from behind the heated air column gets refracted as it passes through the heated air column of different densities, and then enters your eyes.. I believed this is covered in basic optical physics?
The light does not push the air away. If it was so, why would it not pass straight through instead, pushing the gas out of the shortest optical path?
Refraction also occurs when two different substances of same temperature meet. Try doing experiments. If that was not so, then the straw in a glass will not appear bent as it enters water from air of same temperature.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Mellinia

[Relative]

 

 

Refraction is not due to a void of energy. The statement is nonsensical from a physics point of view. Energy is not a substance.

 

We say light is energy, and we treat that as a substance.

 

 

That would seem to be mainly an issue with you not doing proper research.

 

It really shouldn't be difficult to confirm that we see things because our eyes detect light — turn the lights out and cover the windows, and record how much "mass" you can see. Light gets into our eyes either directly from a source or from reflection. You can study optics for further investigation on how light behaves.

 

I have considered light and researched it, but do not agree that light reflects off an object so that we can see it. I believe that our vision narrows or broadens due to different energy levels. I believe the refraction from a tar mac road is a build up off energy/heat, and the wave we see is energy and not warmed up gases refracting light.

Hot air rises, there can be no fresh intake of air, although you may argue the fact about wind pushing in fresh air to get heated.

 

Often the tarmac refraction of <heat>, it is a none windy day.

 

Scuba divers can also see a refraction of similar nature where the thermocline meets the cold.

 

Light at night changes our aerial perspective view. If I shine a flashlight into your face , your vision narrows and you can only see the glare of the bulb.

 

You can not see past the bulb, behind the flashlight you will see blackness. If light scatters has is said, why do we not see behind the flashlight?

 

Where as if I stand behind the flashlight, my vision broadens, my aerial perspective view will still narrow at distance, but my light spreads out wide, where as with the light shined into my face, I see the light and aerial perspective view narrows.

 

I stand in the middle of a warehouse with no windows or light except a single bulb hanging in the center.

 

I stand under the bulb and I can see all the walls, I turn down the light by remote dimmer. Slowly the walls become black and disappear,

 

So light at the C, that spreads and scatters, should hit my walls, and reflect as is said. But it obviously doe's not as the walls have gone black to my vision.

This shows that different energy levels are required for our eyes to see at distance.

 

The sun, a constant source, a constant spread, and our visual/eyes, are behind the light, as standing behind a flashlight, but our eyes would be inside the bulb of the flashlight, daylight is a constant in front of our eyes, giving a constant wide angle of view, as with the flashlight at night.

 

Turn down the light/energy, then our view narrows and lessens.

 

I will tell you a test to show you this.

 

1. A room, curtains closed, light on, door open, lesser light source shining through the ajar door.

 

2. Stare directly at a focal point

 

3. Out of the corner of your eye, notice an object, as far as you can notice without taking attention off your focal point.

 

4. Get some one to turn off the light in the room you are in, leaving the open door light to shine through.

 

5. Notice your vision as just narrowed the object in the corner of your eye vanishes into the dark although you still have light from the ajar door.

 

The difference, less energy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SplitInfinity]

Hot air rises, there can be no fresh intake of air, although you may argue the fact about wind pushing in fresh air to get heated.

 

Often the tarmac refraction of <heat>, it is a none windy day.

 

Scuba divers can also see a refraction of similar nature where the thermocline meets the cold.

 

Light at night changes our aerial perspective view. If I shine a flashlight into your face , your vision narrows and you can only see the glare of the bulb.

 

You can not see past the bulb, behind the flashlight you will see blackness. If light scatters has is said, why do we not see behind the flashlight?

 

Where as if I stand behind the flashlight, my vision broadens, my aerial perspective view will still narrow at distance, but my light spreads out wide, where as with the light shined into my face, I see the light and aerial perspective view narrows.

 

I stand in the middle of a warehouse with no windows or light except a single bulb hanging in the center.

 

I stand under the bulb and I can see all the walls, I turn down the light by remote dimmer. Slowly the walls become black and disappear,

 

So light at the C, that spreads and scatters, should hit my walls, and reflect as is said. But it obviously doe's not as the walls have gone black to my vision.

This shows that different energy levels are required for our eyes to see at distance.

 

The sun, a constant source, a constant spread, and our visual/eyes, are behind the light, as standing behind a flashlight, but our eyes would be inside the bulb of the flashlight, daylight is a constant in front of our eyes, giving a constant wide angle of view, as with the flashlight at night.

 

Turn down the light/energy, then our view narrows and lessens.

 

I will tell you a test to show you this.

 

1. A room, curtains closed, light on, door open, lesser light source shining through the ajar door.

 

2. Stare directly at a focal point

 

3. Out of the corner of your eye, notice an object, as far as you can notice without taking attention off your focal point.

 

4. Get some one to turn off the light in the room you are in, leaving the open door light to shine through.

 

5. Notice your vision as just narrowed the object in the corner of your eye vanishes into the dark although you still have light from the ajar door.

 

The difference, less energy

 

What in the world do any of these examples have to do with your attempt to claim that our eyes are not seeing Photons that have reflected off the Matter viewed...as you stated Photons or Light is not reflecting?

 

I cannot see a single example you have given that would apply or be used as some form of proof for your statements.

 

We KNOW that what we see...light being Photons...a Quantum Particle/Wave Form...must reflect off Matter or be generated by a reaction of it. If this were not so then YOU and I would never be able to see and determine the COLOR of an object.

 

By your reasoning...and I am not even completely certain what your reasoning is...the light or Photons that is detected by our eyes and thus when a person looks at the Green Grass on a Summers day....that light or Photons our eyes tell our brain is the color Green...is not sunlight reflecting off that grass.

 

So tell me this...since the SUN is the source of the light...as if it was a cloud covered night away from city lights the Grass certainly would not be generating any visable light for us to see....how exactly is it that our eyes detect this light?

How is it that we see it as Green?

 

This issue is as simple as holding a mirror in a dark room and pointing a flashlight at it. The mirror reflects the light. If the flashlight was aimed at anything else...we would see the reflection of that light off the object as well as the reflection of anything the light has bounced off of.

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

Relative, on 29 Mar 2013 - 00:23, said:

We say light is energy, and we treat that as a substance.

 

Who is "we"? In physics, energy is a property of something. You can't hand someone a cup of energy.

 

Relative, on 29 Mar 2013 - 00:23, said:

I have considered light and researched it, but do not agree that light reflects off an object so that we can see it. I believe that our vision narrows or broadens due to different energy levels. I believe the refraction from a tar mac road is a build up off energy/heat, and the wave we see is energy and not warmed up gases refracting light.

And you're wrong. But you're free to come up with a model, make predictions that can potentially falsify the model, do the experiments and see what happens. The index of refraction model has worked pretty well thus far, though.

 

 

Relative, on 29 Mar 2013 - 00:23, said:

Hot air rises, there can be no fresh intake of air, although you may argue the fact about wind pushing in fresh air to get heated.

 

Often the tarmac refraction of <heat>, it is a none windy day.

 

Scuba divers can also see a refraction of similar nature where the thermocline meets the cold.

 

Light at night changes our aerial perspective view. If I shine a flashlight into your face , your vision narrows and you can only see the glare of the bulb.

 

You can not see past the bulb, behind the flashlight you will see blackness. If light scatters has is said, why do we not see behind the flashlight?

Because our eyes are nonlinear detectors with a dynamic response of limited range. When you have a bright source, they can't detect a dim source.

 

Relative, on 29 Mar 2013 - 00:23, said:

Where as if I stand behind the flashlight, my vision broadens, my aerial perspective view will still narrow at distance, but my light spreads out wide, where as with the light shined into my face, I see the light and aerial perspective view narrows.

 

I stand in the middle of a warehouse with no windows or light except a single bulb hanging in the center.

 

I stand under the bulb and I can see all the walls, I turn down the light by remote dimmer. Slowly the walls become black and disappear,

 

So light at the C, that spreads and scatters, should hit my walls, and reflect as is said. But it obviously doe's not as the walls have gone black to my vision.

This shows that different energy levels are required for our eyes to see at distance.

When you turn the light down there are fewer photons, and yes, there is a minimum number of photons you need for your eyes to detect something.

[Relative]

What in the world do any of these examples have to do with your attempt to claim that our eyes are not seeing Photons that have reflected off the Matter viewed...as you stated Photons or Light is not reflecting?

 

I cannot see a single example you have given that would apply or be used as some form of proof for your statements.

 

We KNOW that what we see...light being Photons...a Quantum Particle/Wave Form...must reflect off Matter or be generated by a reaction of it. If this were not so then YOU and I would never be able to see and determine the COLOR of an object.

 

By your reasoning...and I am not even completely certain what your reasoning is...the light or Photons that is detected by our eyes and thus when a person looks at the Green Grass on a Summers day....that light or Photons our eyes tell our brain is the color Green...is not sunlight reflecting off that grass.

 

So tell me this...since the SUN is the source of the light...as if it was a cloud covered night away from city lights the Grass certainly would not be generating any visable light for us to see....how exactly is it that our eyes detect this light?

How is it that we see it as Green?

 

This issue is as simple as holding a mirror in a dark room and pointing a flashlight at it. The mirror reflects the light. If the flashlight was aimed at anything else...we would see the reflection of that light off the object as well as the reflection of anything the light has bounced off of.

 

Split Infinity

You mention colors, certain colors reflect more light / Photons, some colors absorb more light.

 

I am not sure but I think mirrors reflect / deflect all light?

 

A difference.

 

So looking at surface colors, example green grass. Some of the spectrum would be absorbed and some would not, depending on density or structure make up?

 

So each color would have a different surface temperature?

 

Hence a different energy level.

 

Now consider our visual perspective of a printing 4 color process.

 

Millions of dots, over layed to create an image.

 

So imagine our green grass, and the spectrum and frequency of green, imagine this is one of the wavelengths that our grass can not absorb or slowly absorbs.

 

So the individual Photons allow us to see green.

 

As there is a density of traffic, a traffic jam as such.

 

If the surface of different color , do have a different temperature, this shows a different energy level, and this is what I am getting at and trying to explain.

 

Also I thank you for your patience and understanding, and unlike a rather rude other forum, I thank you for the none use of profanities and insults allowing me to explain.

[SplitInfinity]

You mention colors, certain colors reflect more light / Photons, some colors absorb more light.

 

I am not sure but I think mirrors reflect / deflect all light?

 

A difference.

 

So looking at surface colors, example green grass. Some of the spectrum would be absorbed and some would not, depending on density or structure make up?

 

So each color would have a different surface temperature?

 

Hence a different energy level.

 

Now consider our visual perspective of a printing 4 color process.

 

Millions of dots, over layed to create an image.

 

So imagine our green grass, and the spectrum and frequency of green, imagine this is one of the wavelengths that our grass can not absorb or slowly absorbs.

 

So the individual Photons allow us to see green.

 

As there is a density of traffic, a traffic jam as such.

 

If the surface of different color , do have a different temperature, this shows a different energy level, and this is what I am getting at and trying to explain.

 

Also I thank you for your patience and understanding, and unlike a rather rude other forum, I thank you for the none use of profanities and insults allowing me to explain.

 

Our Eyes have evolved into a biological machine designed to channel as well as manipulate the entry of Photons. Sine Photons are Quanta...they exist as both Particle and Wave and even though they have no mass...they do obtain MOMENTUM from both their rate of speed...186,282 miles per second...as well as ANGULAR SPIN MOMENTUM...which is a bit more complex of an explaination but photon momentum is NOT specific to Light Frequency...just specific to a Photons velocity as well as it's spin.

 

Now because of this...Light that is generated from our sun not only illuminates everything it comes in contact with on Earth whether our eyes can detect it or not...but does so in a WIDE SPECTRUM OF LIGHT FREQUENCY. So even if we cannot see the Nitrogen, Oxygen Atoms and Molecules in the air as well as other trace gases...the Sunlight still illuminates them and with a Light Spectrometer or even a IR-Detector...we can look at the air at the top and bottom of a canyon and see the temp differences as long as the detection is not overlapped by the canyon walls or other things.

 

Now why do things get hot or cold when bombarded by Photons...and contrary to popular belief...Light CAN cool things as a LASER is used to cool specific Elements to create a Einstien-Bose Condensate which is just a bit above Absolute Zero in temp and is considered as a sixth state of matter along with Solid, Liquid, Gas, Vapor, Plasma and then Einstien-Bose Condensate.

 

Things get hot when Photons interupt the vibrationary state of matter by bombardment in two methods...1. The Photons interfere with the Electron Orbits around Atoms as Electrons and Photons are basically made of the same thing just existing at different levels on the E.M. scale...and by doing so cause the Electrons to vibrate thus causing the Atomic Nucleus to vibrate.

 

The words HOT AND COLD define and are specific to how much or at what level is the Vibrationary State of Matter. The greater this state...the Hotter...the lessor this state...the Colder. Good example is when WATER...H2O...is boiled...the pot that holds it transfers it's Kineticly Increased Vibrationary State to the Water. This Kinetic Transfer is accomplished as the electrons orbitting the Atomic Nucleus' making up the pot that itself is being heated by a stove top....vibrate and distance the atoms and molecules away from each other as well as virbate and expand thus interfering and transfering this vibrationary state to the water. As the water boils the water molecules H20 DO NOT seperate into Hydrogen and Oxygen gases but rather water stays as H2O and turns into water vapor. This vapor is just water molecules...H2O...heated...or placed into a high vibrationary state which causes the H2O to seperate from it's grouped liquid state and rise and mix with the Nitrogen and Oxygen gases in our air.

 

The second method of Photon interaction with matter to generate Heat is specific to Photon Momentum as photons do obtain momentum and can and will impact both orbital electron fields as well as impact in some case the actual Atomic Nucleus which in both cases will cause again a transfer of kinetic energy and an increase in the vibrationary state of matter.

 

Photon interaction with WATER CAN seperate Hydrogen from Oxygen as UV-Light will cause this chemical reaction which will split up H2O.

 

After all that...our EYES can detect both directly generated Photons from the sun as well as the Photons reflected off various states of matter. Thing is...we see colors because Photons are reflecting off specific Matter and the makeup of the Atomic or Mlecular Composition of such matter determins what frequency of light...Photon Wave Length...our eyes will take in.

 

The HEAT you talk about being generated due to Lights reflection off matter can be detected with an IR-Light detector. Infra-Red Light is not visable to the Human Eye but can be seen with such detectors as well as the TEMP can be determined.

 

Split Infinity

[Relative]

Our Eyes have evolved into a biological machine designed to channel as well as manipulate the entry of Photons. Sine Photons are Quanta...they exist as both Particle and Wave and even though they have no mass...they do obtain MOMENTUM from both their rate of speed...186,282 miles per second...as well as ANGULAR SPIN MOMENTUM...which is a bit more complex of an explaination but photon momentum is NOT specific to Light Frequency...just specific to a Photons velocity as well as it's spin.

 

Now because of this...Light that is generated from our sun not only illuminates everything it comes in contact with on Earth whether our eyes can detect it or not...but does so in a WIDE SPECTRUM OF LIGHT FREQUENCY. So even if we cannot see the Nitrogen, Oxygen Atoms and Molecules in the air as well as other trace gases...the Sunlight still illuminates them and with a Light Spectrometer or even a IR-Detector...we can look at the air at the top and bottom of a canyon and see the temp differences as long as the detection is not overlapped by the canyon walls or other things.

You say everything on Earth , is illuminated by a wide spectrum of light frequency, do you mean wide as in, the waves are further apart , more spread out, the same as waves on a sine graph, that shows the different frequencies of waves?.. "more distance between the humps".

 

If so, why would it have to be a wave, why not a frequency ,in a straight line?, "meaning lights state, until it impacts on a surface, light's decent ray", is transparent. As you say we can not see the gases in the troposphere,

 

So would it not be that with evolution, our eyes evolved to a equal frequency of the light, making it "a neutral state", before it reflects off the surface?

 

And then on "impact, reflection or refraction", , causing an interupt in the flow of the "constant state", frequencies been absorbed quicker than others, concentrating different surface temperature as on different colors, making a build up of residual energy/photons on the surface, and this is what we see, and not a reflection ray of photons into the eye?

 

Also you mention a canyon, and measuring thermal heat at the different heights, Our troposphere is warmer because the lower levels of gases are more dense so hold more heat?

 

You say infra red is not visable to the human eye, can we not see it,is that because, that is the main frequency we see with, our eyes see in infa red even in the day time, seeing thermal heat of the different colors?

 

And thank you for the amazing post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why do things get hot or cold when bombarded by Photons...and contrary to popular belief...Light CAN cool things as a LASER is used to cool specific Elements to create a Einstien-Bose Condensate which is just a bit above Absolute Zero in temp and is considered as a sixth state of matter along with Solid, Liquid, Gas, Vapor, Plasma and then Einstien-Bose Condensate.

 

Things get hot when Photons interupt the vibrationary state of matter by bombardment in two methods...1. The Photons interfere with the Electron Orbits around Atoms as Electrons and Photons are basically made of the same thing just existing at different levels on the E.M. scale...and by doing so cause the Electrons to vibrate thus causing the Atomic Nucleus to vibrate.

 

The words HOT AND COLD define and are specific to how much or at what level is the Vibrationary State of Matter. The greater this state...the Hotter...the lessor this state...the Colder. Good example is when WATER...H2O...is boiled...the pot that holds it transfers it's Kineticly Increased Vibrationary State to the Water. This Kinetic Transfer is accomplished as the electrons orbitting the Atomic Nucleus' making up the pot that itself is being heated by a stove top....vibrate and distance the atoms and molecules away from each other as well as virbate and expand thus interfering and transfering this vibrationary state to the water. As the water boils the water molecules H20 DO NOT seperate into Hydrogen and Oxygen gases but rather water stays as H2O and turns into water vapor. This vapor is just water molecules...H2O...heated...or placed into a high vibrationary state which causes the H2O to seperate from it's grouped liquid state and rise and mix with the Nitrogen and Oxygen gases in our air.

 

The second method of Photon interaction with matter to generate Heat is specific to Photon Momentum as photons do obtain momentum and can and will impact both orbital electron fields as well as impact in some case the actual Atomic Nucleus which in both cases will cause again a transfer of kinetic energy and an increase in the vibrationary state of matter.

 

Photon interaction with WATER CAN seperate Hydrogen from Oxygen as UV-Light will cause this chemical reaction which will split up H2O.

 

After all that...our EYES can detect both directly generated Photons from the sun as well as the Photons reflected off various states of matter. Thing is...we see colors because Photons are reflecting off specific Matter and the makeup of the Atomic or Mlecular Composition of such matter determins what frequency of light...Photon Wave Length...our eyes will take in.

 

The HEAT you talk about being generated due to Lights reflection off matter can be detected with an IR-Light detector. Infra-Red Light is not visable to the Human Eye but can be seen with such detectors as well as the TEMP can be determined.

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

Our Eyes have evolved into a biological machine designed to channel as well as manipulate the entry of Photons. Sine Photons are Quanta...they exist as both Particle and Wave and even though they have no mass...they do obtain MOMENTUM from both their rate of speed...186,282 miles per second...as well as ANGULAR SPIN MOMENTUM...which is a bit more complex of an explaination but photon momentum is NOT specific to Light Frequency...just specific to a Photons velocity as well as it's spin.

 

To say that the linear momentum is dependent on the spin is incorrect. All photons have the same angular momentum — they are spin 1 — independent of linear momentum. The linear momentum of a photon IS specific to its frequency, since momentum is proportional to energy, which is proportional to frequency. p = E/c = hf/c

[SplitInfinity]

To say that the linear momentum is dependent on the spin is incorrect. All photons have the same angular momentum — they are spin 1 — independent of linear momentum. The linear momentum of a photon IS specific to its frequency, since momentum is proportional to energy, which is proportional to frequency. p = E/c = hf/c

 

From WIKI...

The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency.^[17] The magnitude of its spin is and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ. These two possible helicities, called right-handed and left-handed, correspond to the two possible circular polarization states of the photon.^{[18] Split Infinity}

[swansont]

From WIKI...

The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency.^[17] The magnitude of its spin is and the component measured along its direction of motion, its helicity, must be ±ħ. These two possible helicities, called right-handed and left-handed, correspond to the two possible circular polarization states of the photon.^{[18] Split Infinity}

 

Thank you for confirming that I am correct. The angular momentum is independent of frequency, energy and linear momentum.

[SplitInfinity]

Thank you for confirming that I am correct. The angular momentum is independent of frequency, energy and linear momentum.

 

That is what I have been saying all along.

 

Angular Momentum has nothing to do with Frequency and is seperate from the momentum Photons obtain from their traveling at 186,282 miles per second.

 

What happened that you and I thought we were at odds with this?

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

The part I quoted. in particular, "photon momentum is NOT specific to Light Frequency...just specific to a Photons velocity as well as it's spin." none of which is true.

[SplitInfinity]

The part I quoted. in particular, "photon momentum is NOT specific to Light Frequency...just specific to a Photons velocity as well as it's spin." none of which is true.

 

So just to clarify things here. Are you objecting to my simplistic statement concerning Spin Angular Momentum as I just stated...SPIN...as I didn't want to go into vast detail at the time...or...are you objecting to my statement that Photons obtain Momentum due to their velocity at 186,282 miles per second?

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

So just to clarify things here. Are you objecting to my simplistic statement concerning Spin Angular Momentum as I just stated...SPIN...as I didn't want to go into vast detail at the time...or...are you objecting to my statement that Photons obtain Momentum due to their velocity at 186,282 miles per second?

 

Split Infinity

 

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is not specific to frequency — it is. p = hf/c, i.e. it is linearly dependent on frequency

 

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is specific to its velocity — it's not. c is a constant, and momentum varies with frequency

 

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is specific to its spin — it's not. Spin is also a constant for any photon. Momentum isn't.

[SplitInfinity]

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is not specific to frequency — it is. p = hf/c, i.e. it is linearly dependent on frequency

 

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is specific to its velocity — it's not. c is a constant, and momentum varies with frequency

 

I am objecting to your claim that photon momentum is specific to its spin — it's not. Spin is also a constant for any photon. Momentum isn't.

 

What I am saying is that Spin Angular Momentum is NOT specific to frequency.

 

Photon frequency does create Photon Momentum but not at rest as this is not possible...only at c.

 

Split Infinity