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

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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.

 

I dare not say it... But does this not indicate Observation itself may be part of what makes things real .

 

I do not pretend. I can not easily adjust to the statement in italics. Although I have heard it put that way , and also, that observation can be viewed in terms of inanimate interaction counting as an observation.

 

I think Professor Al-Khalili is giving a presentation on this subject , here in the U.K December 9th Link - http://www.jimalkhalili.com/

 

mike

 

Ps. IF this is correct . There are two rather profound things afoot.

 

1) The universe is undergoing , by interactions all over the place ,a sort of self constructing , Auto build process.

 

2) Observation, particularly by Sentient beings like ourselves are making our reality by our observation.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

I dare not say it... But does this not indicate Observation itself may be part of what makes things real .

 

You've changed the discussion. "Real" and "physical object" are not synonymous. A hole in the ground is real, but it is not a physical object.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You've changed the discussion. "Real" and "physical object" are not synonymous. A hole in the ground is real, but it is not a physical object.

O.k. Fair enough, but people were discussing particles being ' real ' or not.

 

We are however discussing ( according to the title of the thread ) ..The properties of a Photon .. And whether it is real or not seems to be a consideration and some members were calling for a definition of ' Real' .

 

How can we progress if we do not distinguish , around the issue of real and physical object ?

 

 

If anything , I am suggesting that a photon is NOT a physical object , but it could be REAL if a photon was viewed in the correct way .

 

I am also suggesting to test for its Real ' ness , we need to look for invariance and symmetry ' ness

 

Maybe our problem is trying to hang on to the particle aspect of wave- particle duality.

 

Perhaps we should 'dump' the particle as a physical thing and look for the particle nature more as a real hole type thing . Like my vortex in the pool . Real but not a physical thing like a rubber ball .

 

......................................."Quantum Gravity and the implication for photons" ......................................................................

 

------------------------------------------------------------//---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------//-----------

Eureka ! I have it ! --------------- [ Warning Speculative ] ----------------------------------------------------------------//-----------

------------------------------------------------------------//---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------//-----------

 

Mike Smith : 6:39 GMT

The photon is a bubble of sufficiently small radius , that the curvature of space time at that radius has completely curved in on itself to make a gravitational bubble. Looking like a three dimensional vortex in space time . Such that it looks like a particle , but is not physical ( nothing inside the bubble ) , but is real . Because space-time is real ( invariant )

 

These bubbles then stream out at the speed of light , like kiddies bubbles when they blow through a loop.

 

Real , but not physical , because they are empty bubbles made in the fabric of space time . The ultimate micro-miniature curvature of space time . Linking quantum with gravity ( quantum-gravity ) Fixed !

 

How's that for a mornings work ! I knew I should not have woken so early this morning. Solution to quantum Gravity. Just theory of General Relativity working at Quantum levels of radius .Space time curved into Micro Miniature Bubbles ... - Photons -

http://www.doctorzig...m/cp2u/image2ql

 

.....very small...quantum bubbles .............-------..... very large galaxy superclusters

.

 

http://www.doctorzig...m/cp2u/image2ql

.....very small...quantum bubbles .............-------..... very large galaxy superclusters

/

Now comes the application and test .

 

It is so easy to do . 1 We turn on a light . 2 We fire up a coil ,capacitor , antenna combination

We produce quantum bubbles of space time , and out they shoot , like streams of kiddies bubbles at the speed of light. It is so easy .

 

Tying this in with general relativity at the quantum radius , might prove a little more tricky . However we can have a bit of fun blowing quantum bubbles ( oops ! Photons ) , in the mean time .

 

There , did it , trillions upon trillions of quantum bubbles - photons

 

 

Mike

..................................................... ............................................ ................................... ..................................... .............................

As the latter half of this post is Speculative. I have moved the Subject of "Quantum Gravity and the implication for photons" to the Speculations Forum .

 

See :- " Theory of Quantum Gravity & Photon Production ", Speculation forum .

..................................................... ............................................. ................................... ................................... .............................

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Mike

 

Please don't continue on the above speculative notion - this is the main quantum mechanics forum and discussion should remain on understood mainstream science. If you wish to speculate please do so in the Speculations forum

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Mordred]

 

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.

Interesting discussion. The wording here seems to have caused some confusion.. though the intent was probably different.

 

What is physical...well if you look at the definition of physical it includes anything studied in physics.

Including all forms of matter and energy. There is for example the physical accoustics of sound. The physical properties of a wavelength. Etc.

 

So according to the Webster dictionary of the term physical I would have to say a photon is physical.

 

As we can measure its properties I would say it is real.

 

As mentioned it depends on how you define the terminology. By the current definitions the photon is both real and physical

[davidivad]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F1504%2F1%2Fphoton.doc&ei=i-B4VIeIAsuxsASek4DoDw&usg=AFQjCNFYTrnPWU4q7ue4tFTsclg0MyOk5Q&sig2=8CBcE5mvbU4rgBAWqBCEcA

 

here is an interesting view that considers the field real and the photon as an observable under measurement.

it still needs work but is interesting nonetheless.

[Mordred]

This article has some interesting coverage on various QM myths Including wave particle duality.

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163

 

it's a good coverage definetely worth reading

[swansont]

Interesting discussion. The wording here seems to have caused some confusion.. though the intent was probably different.

 

What is physical...well if you look at the definition of physical it includes anything studied in physics.

Including all forms of matter and energy. There is for example the physical accoustics of sound. The physical properties of a wavelength. Etc.

 

So according to the Webster dictionary of the term physical I would have to say a photon is physical.

 

As we can measure its properties I would say it is real.

 

As mentioned it depends on how you define the terminology. By the current definitions the photon is both real and physical

What about: electric and magnetic fields, phonons, semiconductor holes, etc.? Physics is full of concepts that are only used to make calculation easier, with no promise of being material.

 

I'm not going to argue equivocation/semantics. I'm not using that sub-definition.

[Mordred]

Fair enough then what do you define as being physical?

 

Is your definition that it must contain only matter particles? Ie take up space such as fermions?

 

An infinite number of bosons can occupy the same volume where only one fermion can occupy a given volume.

 

This seems to be the direction your going.

 

English aside physics is the study of the physical universe. This does include energy. Granted English definitions are often cumbersome. So let's clarify what we define as physical in terms of this discussion. It certainly isn't going to change the accepted definitions in any dictionary or textbook lol

 

The photon isn't a matter particle as it is a boson so in the sense of this post it wouldn't count as being a material. However it is a form of particle with measurable properties and energy.

 

Does this mean it isn't physical? Then we would have to rewrite the definition of physical. Good luck with that.

[Sensei]

What about: electric and magnetic fields, phonons, semiconductor holes, etc.? Physics is full of concepts that are only used to make calculation easier, with no promise of being material.

But electric field is result of presence or not presence of electrons, ions, or other charged particles, which are "real physical objects".

There will be no electrons, or nucleus, there will be ~0 electric field around them.

 

We use electric field to learn about other electric fields f.e. place plates of electrodes around flowing water, and causing change of direction of water (that's polar).

We use magnetic field to learn about other magnetic fields f.e. place magnetized iron needle, and checking in which direction it's rotating. If there is lack of artificial magnetic field, it will rotate according to Earth's magnetic field.

Magnet made of "real physical object" is source, and magnet made of "real physical object" needle is target.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Sensei

[Mordred]

Lol this topic is beginning to remind me of whether or not virtual particles are real or not. The discussion on another forum went on and on for over 100 pages. No agreement was ever reached. Just a side note

( It was entertaining though as it involved roughly a dozen professors in the discussion)coincidentally also in a quantum mechanics forum

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mordred

[davidivad]

amen

 

thanks for the read mordred.

edit:

that was an excellent article..

Edited November 28, 2014 by davidivad

[Mordred]

Your welcome really makes you think

[swansont]

But electric field is result of presence or not presence of electrons, ions, or other charged particles, which are "real physical objects".

There will be no electrons, or nucleus, there will be ~0 electric field around them.

Does that make the field a real physical object? As opposed to a mathematical description of the force per unit charge if another charge was placed at some point?