Properties of photons (split from looking in telescope to distant star)

[Delbert]

Does that mean that by any means (gravity & EM radiations), the interactions are delayed?

Yep. If actions and reactions were somehow instantaneous it would require an infinite amount of energy - which is clearly ludicrous. An infinite amount of energy on the simple premise that such an instant action or reaction would require an infinite field of (say) gravity that extends throughout the universe to move all at once. As said, to move such an boundless field all as one entity would clearly require the ludicrous situation of an infinite amount of energy.

 

From what I understand this was first realised by James Clark Maxwell, and provided the mathematics of propagation. Which (my maths is nowhere good enough) I understand amounts to the speed of a massless particle. Light, I further understand, isn't entirely massless, so it travels ever so slightly slower than such a speed, but it's a very tiny difference.

[Strange]

 

Light, I further understand, isn't entirely massless, so it travels ever so slightly slower than such a speed, but it's a very tiny difference.

 

Whoa! Hold on there. Light is theoretically, and as far as can be determined by experiment, massless and therefore travels at the speed of light.

[swansont]

Light, I further understand, isn't entirely massless, so it travels ever so slightly slower than such a speed, but it's a very tiny difference.

 

Your understanding is flawed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I said to my understanding, If you say it doesn't then it doesn't. I just added that to my comments about propagation speed or the need for a propagation speed.

 

But as for your claim that it's massless, from a purely theoretical position it seems a bold statement to make. Because it says that it can't have any mass whatsoever: like not even 1 preceded by ten million noughts of a gram - or any other greater number of noughts. I'd have thought it's better to say: zero mass as far as we can tell with current technology.

 

I shall probably get jumped on from a great height for saying this " But , I have never imagined anything going anywhere much when it comes to a Photon. There is nothing there , actually there. So no mass as there is no thing. All that goes off is a unidirectional EFFECT. Like a wave on the sea. The sea water goes nowhere much , just bobs up and down a bit . But a wave appears to go across the sea. I know the sea is altogether different in substance but the wave is , in some ways a good illustration of how energy can travel without any thing going anywhere much. "

 

Similarly , seeing as how this thread is called "looking through a telescope at a distant star" . The photon just coming into your eye. I would say is not some battle worn ' thing ' having traveled half way across the universe, but rather a 'uni directional wave like effect' , that was just stimulated a moment ago , not far off from your eye.

 

Mike

Edited November 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I said to my understanding, If you say it doesn't then it doesn't. I just added that to my comments about propagation speed or the need for a propagation speed.

 

But as for your claim that it's massless, from a purely theoretical position it seems a bold statement to make. Because it says that it can't have any mass whatsoever: like not even 1 preceded by ten million noughts of a gram - or any other greater number of noughts. I'd have thought it's better to say: zero mass as far as we can tell with current technology.

 

The theory says zero, and experiment is consistent with that. If the theory predicted a mass, there would be implications from that in terms of propagation, or decay, among other things.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Well, there is energy, momentum, angular momentum, frequency, ...

 

But whether those things are "real" and whether photons "exist" depends largely on what the words "real" and "exist" mean (more than it does the word "photon"). And that is really just a philosophical point, of no real relevance to science.

Well yes , you are right, there are these attributes present Energy, angular momentum in spin , frequency .

But then one might ask Energy of what ?, angular momentum of what ? , frequency of what ? .

The notion of the particle aspect of ( wave -particle duality,)

 

The thing that I was speaking of in my post ( there is no thing there . I was meaning there is no piece of grit, fragment of some matter etc rather there was a compact effect or photon effect )

 

Experiments I have done show it is possible to produce a compact ( not spread out ) effect .

 

See following model .

:-

 

 

Mike

Edited November 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Can you explain what those photos are supposed to show. It looks like a swimming pool. With some shadows and arrows. One arrow appears to be pointing at a line (the edge of the pool?). The other appears to be pointing at the shadows of trees? Or the shadow of something round? How does this relate to photons? (Apart from the fact the image is created by photons, of course).

 

I assume it makes sense to you because you know what you are looking at.

 

 

The thing that I was speaking of in my post ( there is no thing there

 

As I say. That depends on your definition of "thing". Obviously photons are not material objects. Does that mean they don't exist? I don't know. And I don't care. That is a purely philosophical question (mainly dependent on the meaning of the word "exist") and of no interest to me.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Strange ::::: Can you explain what those photos are supposed to show.

Sorry , I got chopped in half ,as the posting was split . It lost my answers in oblivion.

 

I was trying to show how such things as angular spin and momentum , can be set up ( photo 1 ) they can have a rotational frequency and maintain an independent existence and move independently across the pool. ( photo 2 ) And the energy input , is no longer attached to the source ( photo 3 ) .

 

All this in the pool ( acting as free Space-Time ) , with no THING present no PARTICLE ( as in a fragment of some THING ) only the effect of the initial injection of energy goes sailing off as a free standing Photon Looking vortex.

 

Frank Wilczek refers to the pool as the Grid , made up of the quantum foam, fields, virtual particles and all the other sub sub atomic phenomenon . Presumably now including the Higgs Field .

 

My whole point here being , you do not need a central 'Thing' { what most people think of as a particle } , it is the effect with all its characteristics of Energy, Angular Spin , Frequency , within the Wilczec Grid. ( maybe its now combined with Higgs field, i am not sure )

 

Mike

 

Ps The first arrow points to the free standing vortex . The other arrow marked 'There'. is pointing to another phenomenon , which I have not commented on here , a feint independent moving free standing line. ( as opposed to the free standing moving Vortex )

Edited November 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Delbert]

 

I shall probably get jumped on from a great height for saying this " But , I have never imagined anything going anywhere much when it comes to a Photon. There is nothing there , actually there.

I wouldn't jump on you from a great height. Although I'd say there is something there, possibly a maelstrom of interactions, which I think is what Feynman's diagrams suggest. Leaving what we describe as a photon to be nothing more than an event at the destination following an event at the source, with a maelstrom of interactions, of who knows what, in between. And if we try to detect the thing in flight, all we are do is create another pair of events (with a maelstrom in between).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I wouldn't jump on you from a great height. Although I'd say there is something there, possibly a maelstrom of interactions, which I think is what Feynman's diagrams suggest. Leaving what we describe as a photon to be nothing more than an event at the destination following an event at the source, with a maelstrom of interactions, of who knows what, in between. And if we try to detect the thing in flight, all we are do is create another pair of events (with a maelstrom in between).

 

Yes , well you are probably right , with the Maelstrom of interactions. Whatever is down there , is pretty good to be able to pass these photons along to wherever they go, and arrive pretty darn quickly .

 

Mike

[Strange]

Sorry , I got chopped in half ,as the posting was split . It lost my answers in oblivion.

 

I was trying to show how such things as angular spin and momentum , can be set up ( photo 1 ) they can have a rotational frequency and maintain an independent existence and move independently across the pool. ( photo 2 ) And the energy input , is no longer attached to the source ( photo 3 ) .

 

Thanks for the explanation. I think I see what you are saying now. This is an interesting analogy (*) and is, ultimately, the reason that people assumed there was a thing called the aether that light and similar things took place in.

 

The problem with your analogy, is that you are trying to say (I think) that there is no need for a materiel "thing"; that these properties, spin, momentum, etc can exist as a vortex which is not an object itself, Unfortunately, your analogy only works because you are embedding your vortex in a material thing; the water! (This is a bit like holes as charge carriers in a semiconductor - the hole is "nothing" but it requires the bulk material for its existence.)

 

But on another level, I think your analogy does work. The photon is just a quantization of the underlying electromagnetic field. The electron is a quantization of the underlying electron field. And so on. In each case, you could consider the field as the water. (As long as one doesn't take that analogy too far.)

 

(*) Although not as interesting as this:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/09/bouncing-droplets-simulate-zeeman-effect

http://backreaction.blogspot.de/2014/02/a-drop-makes-waves-just-like-quantum.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-strange-behavior-pilot-wave-dynamics-action.html

[swansont]

I shall probably get jumped on from a great height for saying this " But , I have never imagined anything going anywhere much when it comes to a Photon.

 

No, not really. Physics doesn't claim that a photon is a real, physical object. It's an abstraction we use to describe interactions and behaviors of certain types.

[Sensei]

No, not really. Physics doesn't claim that a photon is a real, physical object. It's an abstraction we use to describe interactions and behaviors of certain types.

If photon is not real then electron, positron nor any other particle is not real physical object either.

 

Photon can create pair of electron and positron, or any other pair of more massive particle-antiparticle...

So, if electron-positron are real physical objects, then photon that created them must be as well real physical object.

[swansont]

If photon is not real then electron, positron nor any other particle is not real physical object either.

 

Photon can create pair of electron and positron, or any other pair of more massive particle-antiparticle...

So, if electron-positron are real physical objects, then photon that created them must be as well real physical object.

 

Why would that have to be true? What are the properties that a physical object has, and what laws govern their creation?

[Delta1212]

If photon is not real then electron, positron nor any other particle is not real physical object either.

 

Photon can create pair of electron and positron, or any other pair of more massive particle-antiparticle...

So, if electron-positron are real physical objects, then photon that created them must be as well real physical object.

Does a particle have to be a real physical object?

[Strange]

If photon is not real then electron, positron nor any other particle is not real physical object either.

 

Photon can create pair of electron and positron, or any other pair of more massive particle-antiparticle...

So, if electron-positron are real physical objects, then photon that created them must be as well real physical object.

 

It is not clear that an electron is a real physical object. But this depends what, exactly, is meant by "electron", "real", "physical" and "object". You can, if you wish, define those terms in such a way that a photon is a "real physical object" and an electron isn't. Or vice versa. Or both. Or neither. It doesn't really matter. (No pun intended!)

[Sensei]

Does a particle have to be a real physical object?

If particle is not "real physical object", then we (clusters of billions of billions particles) are not real either..

 

Are you suggesting Universe is simulation?

It could be.

But if it's perfect simulation, then we will never be able to find it out.

 

Suppose so, intelligent life is appearing in the Universe. It's evolving. Learning physics. Creating computers. Making simulation algorithm that has everything included.

And in simulation there is happening Big Bang, then stars are forming. They're fusing etc. etc. and finally after billions years of simulation there is appearing intelligent simulated life, and cycle is repeating..

Edited November 27, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

If particle is not "real physical object", then we (clusters of billions of billions particles) are not real either..

 

 

We are not made of photons, so I don't see how you've established any connection here.

[Sensei]

We are not made of photons, so I don't see how you've established any connection here.

Didn't I say in #13 post about pair production?

 

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^+ + e^-[/math]

 

[math]\gamma + 1.876544 GeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

Edited November 27, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

If particle is not "real physical object", then we (clusters of billions of billions particles) are not real either..

 

I don't see the logic of that. It depends on the definition of "real physical object." For example, I could define a "real physical object" as one made of atoms. That says that electrons are not "real physical objects" but we are still real.

 

So, the problem is not the existence of photons or other particles, it is what is meant by the question. Until the terms are defined, no meaningful answer is possible (or, equally, any answer is possible).

Didn't I say in #13 post about pair production?

 

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^+ + e^-[/math]

 

[math]\gamma + 1.876544 GeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

 

We are not made of electron-positron pairs, either.

[Sensei]

I don't see the logic of that.

C'mon!

 

For example, I could define a "real physical object" as one made of atoms. That says that electrons are not "real physical objects" but we are still real.

Then it's not true. Atom is nucleus + electrons. You would have to say "real physical object is made of nucleus/baryons", to reject electrons from being real physical objects.

 

We are not made of electron-positron pairs, either.

But we're made of electrons that were created (or at least could be) in pair production, while its antiparticle travel somewhere else, or annihilated already..

[Strange]

Then it's not true. Atom is nucleus + electrons. You would have to say "real physical object is made of nucleus/baryons", to reject electrons from being real physical objects.

 

It is a definition. I am not saying it is true, I am just pointing out that without defining the terms, the discussion is meaningless. And the answer depends on the definition. How do you define "real physical object"?

 

But, sticking with my definition: "real physical objects are made of atoms". By this definition, electrons, baryons and, yes, photons, are not real physical objects (because they are not made of atoms).

 

The sneaky question I was expecting (because I hadn't worked out the answer) was: are atoms real physical objects according to this definition?

 

But we're made of electrons that were created (or at least could be) in pair production, while its antiparticle travel somewhere else, or annihilated already..

 

But, as you point out, we are mainly made of nucleons, which weren't made this way.

[swansont]

Didn't I say in #13 post about pair production?

 

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^+ + e^-[/math]

 

[math]\gamma + 1.876544 GeV \rightarrow p^+ + p^-[/math]

 

 

You did say that, but you haven't established that creation of matter/antimatter pairs requires a physical object.

C'mon!

 

Not really an argument.

 

 

What if a requirement of a physical object was to be a lepton, or comprised of leptons? Bosons can occupy the same space, while leptons can't.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If photon is not real then electron, positron nor any other particle is not real physical object either.

 

Photon can create pair of electron and positron, or any other pair of more massive particle-antiparticle...

So, if electron-positron are real physical objects, then photon that created them must be as well real physical object.

 

 

As I have been lead to believe, The Test for seeing if something is REAL is :- Is it invariant.

 

Namely , does it look the same from whichever perspective we view the 'Thing '

 

From whatever Frame or perspective ' a REAL thing' will look the same . Invariant .

 

Be that, constant velocity, accelerating, electrically, magnetically, charge, spin, gravitational, Whatever way you look , it looks the same.

 

Mike

 

One could speak in terms of nearly, very close to reality. The most real view.

 

So, If this definition of reality is correct, if we need to get a hold of a ' Real Photon ' it needs to be Invariant . So could it be a wave , and a particle . Surely it needs to be ' xxxxxxxxxx' . what ever 'xxxxxxxxx' it needs to be viewed , invariant. I suppose it could have facets . Not sure.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I'm not sure that definition works very well, Mike. Not for all properties of "things" anyway. For example, velocity, momentum, length and energy (among other things) are all observer dependent properties even for "real" objects.