Jump to content

Wave particle Duality inspired by a thread in Chemistry


studiot

Recommended Posts

Discussion of quantum theory is getting in the way of discussion about chemical spectroscopy in this thread and we all agreed that it would be better conducted in a separate place.
As this forum has an allocated palce for quantum theory I am starting this thread to promote that discussion.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109814-vibrational-frequency-co2-global-warming/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1014291

Here is a kick off post by BBoson by way of explanation.

Quote

BanterinBoson

Quote

Swansont

Resonant light absorption by atoms is not classical. Your model doesn't apply.

As I stated earlier. (point particles)

And you have to learn about quantum mechanics to do so.

Probably a discussion for another thread, but if a physical medium exists, you have to have a velocity with respect to it, and that just doesn't work.

Let's save that for other discussions

 

I agree that quantum mechanics is quite different from classical mechanics.

Like classical mechanics, QM can be approached at different levels from different viewpoints.
One such is using 'wave packets' to describe duality

A classical wave extends to infinity in both directions.
Mathematicall the classical wave equation has no beginning or end.
We simply ignore that part of the mathematical equation outside our region of interest.

sin_mov1.gif.95470540499d34751bce163dab5ef875.gif

 

A wave packet has a beginning and an end and can be used as a model as to how you can have wave/particle duality.

Wave_packet_(dispersion).gif.8603d262ff8b16958236022c16e6aa3a.gif

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Discussion of quantum theory is getting in the way of discussion about chemical spectroscopy in this thread and we all agreed that it would be better conducted in a separate place.
As this forum has an allocated palce for quantum theory I am starting this thread to promote that discussion.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109814-vibrational-frequency-co2-global-warming/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1014291

There is much in that thread that should have tangential threads.

Quote

I agree that quantum mechanics is quite different from classical mechanics.

I really don't want you to think of me as a pain in the butt for being such a nonconformist (or any other reason), but I don't resonate with these "styles" in how to view the world (classical vs QM).  Why can't there just be the Tao... the way?  You asked me before to forget the photon, so what's wrong with treating the particles as quantised bits of waves rather than the misleading idea of "particle" nomenclature?  I'm not sure I said that right, but you know what I mean.  The idea of particles bothers me because the infinite divisibility problem.  Fundamental reality has to be energy.

Quote

Like classical mechanics, QM can be approached at different levels from different viewpoints.
One such is using 'wave packets' to describe duality

Oh you mean "duality" in finite/infinite.  So "wave packets" is a singularity composed of two opposites like a "true lie" or "bright night" or +- which sums to nothing.  This is becoming very interesting philosophically.

Quote

A classical wave extends to infinity in both directions.
Mathematicall the classical wave equation has no beginning or end.
We simply ignore that part of the mathematical equation outside our region of interest.

Now you're really going to hate me... I don't believe infinity exists in reality.  We will definitely need a separate thread for that discussion.

Quote

A wave packet has a beginning and an end and can be used as a model as to how you can have wave/particle duality.

Something is wrong...how can models that don't reflect reality be accurate?  How can a wave extend to infinity and also be accurately represented as a discrete particle?  Which is reality?  That reminds me of the Thomson Lamp: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

The setup is this - let us imagine a lamp with a switch that flicked once, turns the lamp on, and flicked again turns it off. Now suppose we can perform the following task: after one minute we turn the lamp on, then half a minute after that we turn it off, then a quarter of a minute after that we turn it on again, then an eighth of a minute after that we turn it off, and so on...

The sum of this infinite series of intervals is two minutes. The question is, given that the lamp can only be on or off, what state is it in after two minutes?

We can make S equal to 1, 0, or 1/2.

However we look at the situation, it seems that somehow the lamp is both on and off at the same time. But this is a contradiction to our previous statements that the lamp must be either on or off.

In mathematics, when we come to a contradiction often the first thing to do is check our prepositions are correct. Are all the things we assumed to be true in the first place really true? In the case of Thomson's Lamp one of them must be wrong. Modern mathematics says that the proposition that says the lamp must be either on or off is wrong. In infinite mathematics lamps must be able to be both on and off at the same time.

But you could say instead that infinity doesn't exist - that it isn't possible to perform an infinite series of actions. That even a mathematical lamp can't be on and off at the same time. We could try this experiment in real life and get a similar answer. Eventually we would only be able to switch the lamp at the smallest observable quanta of time - we wouldn't be able to switch it any faster. And so the lamp would have a definite ending state after two minutes - and even one we could calculate beforehand if we knew the numbers involved.

 

Likewise, the waves should have an end without needing to become particles.  Surely the gravity of a molecule at the other end of the universe can't be stretching all the way to this side.  At some point it would become fundamentally impossible to detect and meaningless to ask if it exists.  Like trying to discern the curvature of a circle with radius of graham's number of light years; circles of that magnitude are indistinguishable from straight lines.

The universe is a strange place.  Consider the sum of all natural numbers being = -1/12  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

There is much in that thread that should have tangential threads.

If you have further questions then start some additional threads to ask them That is the purpose of ScienceForums.

:)

I really don't want you to think of me as a pain in the butt for being such a nonconformist (or any other reason), but I don't resonate with these "styles" in how to view the world (classical vs QM).  Why can't there just be the Tao... the way?  You asked me before to forget the photon, so what's wrong with treating the particles as quantised bits of waves rather than the misleading idea of "particle" nomenclature?  I'm not sure I said that right, but you know what I mean.  The idea of particles bothers me because the infinite divisibility problem.  Fundamental reality has to be energy.

The only pain in the butt is having to delete the garish video at the end of the quote.
I will come on to energy further on in this reply.

Oh you mean "duality" in finite/infinite.  So "wave packets" is a singularity composed of two opposites like a "true lie" or "bright night" or +- which sums to nothing.  This is becoming very interesting philosophically.

No I mean duality in that certain observable phenomena (remember Science is all about what we can observe) some aspects of more than one (two in the case of duality) abstract construct is displayed. In the case of particle/wave duality some of these aspects are mutually exclusive.
All this proves is that observerable phenomena are mmore varied than our imagination.

Now you're really going to hate me... I don't believe infinity exists in reality.  We will definitely need a separate thread for that discussion.

Reality is not a scientific term. Scientists deal in observed 'facts' and deduce connections between them.
We have actually has many threads discussing the terminology of 'reality and existance' at ScienceForums.
Personally I am of the opinion that Philosophy is better equiped to discuss these than Science and the ordinary apparatus of the English Language better suited to the discussion.

Something is wrong...how can models that don't reflect reality be accurate?  How can a wave extend to infinity and also be accurately represented as a discrete particle?  Which is reality?  That reminds me of the Thomson Lamp: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist
 

Models are never perfectly accurate. The only perfectly accurate model of anything is the thing itself.

The setup is this - let us imagine a lamp with a switch that flicked once, turns the lamp on, and flicked again turns it off. Now suppose we can perform the following task: after one minute we turn the lamp on, then half a minute after that we turn it off, then a quarter of a minute after that we turn it on again, then an eighth of a minute after that we turn it off, and so on...

The sum of this infinite series of intervals is two minutes. The question is, given that the lamp can only be on or off, what state is it in after two minutes?

We can make S equal to 1, 0, or 1/2.

However we look at the situation, it seems that somehow the lamp is both on and off at the same time. But this is a contradiction to our previous statements that the lamp must be either on or off.

In mathematics, when we come to a contradiction often the first thing to do is check our prepositions are correct. Are all the things we assumed to be true in the first place really true? In the case of Thomson's Lamp one of them must be wrong. Modern mathematics says that the proposition that says the lamp must be either on or off is wrong. In infinite mathematics lamps must be able to be both on and off at the same time.

But you could say instead that infinity doesn't exist - that it isn't possible to perform an infinite series of actions. That even a mathematical lamp can't be on and off at the same time. We could try this experiment in real life and get a similar answer. Eventually we would only be able to switch the lamp at the smallest observable quanta of time - we wouldn't be able to switch it any faster. And so the lamp would have a definite ending state after two minutes - and even one we could calculate beforehand if we knew the numbers involved.

I have already said in the originating post that mathematical solutions to the classical wave equation extend to infinity in both directions.
Infinity is a perfectly respectable mathematical abstract construct with well defined (mathematical) properties.
There is nothing to say that observable phenomena have to conform to this construct.
In fact we just don't know if the Universe extends to infinity or remains finite (though there are many hypothesis)

The lamp is a poor model that demonstrates the mathematical truth that discontinuous functions do not obey the classical wave equation.

Likewise, the waves should have an end without needing to become particles.  Surely the gravity of a molecule at the other end of the universe can't be stretching all the way to this side.  At some point it would become fundamentally impossible to detect and meaningless to ask if it exists.  Like trying to discern the curvature of a circle with radius of graham's number of light years; circles of that magnitude are indistinguishable from straight lines.

How many more times?

The classical wave equation extends to infinity in both directions.
This gives rise to various difficulties in various branches of Science and Mathematics.
We can list and discuss these if you like.
But I warn you the discussion will get very mathematical very quickly and I will see a mathematical replies, not wooly wishful thinking.

The universe is a strange place.  Consider the sum of all natural numbers being = -1/12  

Agreed, I said that above in so many words.
All this shows is that there is no correspondence between some abstract (mathematical in this case) construct and observable scientific facts.
There are lots of examples available, limited only by your imagination.

 

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Now you're really going to hate me... I don't believe infinity exists in reality.  We will definitely need a separate thread for that discussion.

In this case, it was just a mathematical abstraction. If you want to consider a single frequency then the waveform has to extend for infinity. If you consider a shorter signal, then it will consist of a mixture of frequencies. (This, incidentally, is the basis of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)

Infinity may exist in reality if the universe is infinite. 

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You asked me before to forget the photon, so what's wrong with treating the particles as quantised bits of waves rather than the misleading idea of "particle" nomenclature?

I agree, calling quanta of light "particles" can lead to confusion. But in the case of electrons and all the other fermions, it seems natural to call the particles. So it seems we are stuck with the terminology.

But photons are neither waves not particles. They have some wave-like properties (e.g. we can measure their wavelength) and they have some particle-like properties (their interactions are post-like and indivisible). But they are neither waves nor particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 I really don't want you to think of me as a pain in the butt for being such a nonconformist (or any other reason), but I don't resonate with these "styles" in how to view the world (classical vs QM).  Why can't there just be the Tao... the way?  

There is no single theory or model that applies to all cases.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You asked me before to forget the photon, so what's wrong with treating the particles as quantised bits of waves rather than the misleading idea of "particle" nomenclature?  

Quantized bits are what we call particles, which is a term that people are already used to. Do you call a golf ball a quantized bit of a wave? No, you call it a ball, because the particle nature is what we are going to observe. We are used to waves, and to particles.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I'm not sure I said that right, but you know what I mean.  The idea of particles bothers me because the infinite divisibility problem.  Fundamental reality has to be energy.

Energy is a property. If you want to talk about fundamental reality, we have a philosophy section.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 Something is wrong...how can models that don't reflect reality be accurate?  How can a wave extend to infinity and also be accurately represented as a discrete particle?  Which is reality?  

A wave that extends to infinity does not represent a particle. It's the pulse that would. You have two different scenarios.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 Likewise, the waves should have an end without needing to become particles.

We don't get to tell nature how to behave.

6 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 The universe is a strange place.  Consider the sum of all natural numbers being = -1/12  

 

No, the sum is not -1/12

https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm going to zero-in on this first since it's freshest in my mind after reading that link.

Quoting from the link:

Quote

But how did this curious, wrong result make it into a physics textbook, as shown in the video? Here is where things really get interesting. Suppose you take two conducting metallic plates and arrange them in a vacuum so that they are parallel to each other. According to classical physics, there shouldn't be any net force acting between the two plates.

But classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales. To do that, you need quantum physics, which tells us many very strange things. One of them is that the vacuum isn't empty, but seething with activity. So-called virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. This activity gives a so called zero point energy: the lowest energy something can have is never zero (see herefor more detail).

When you try to calculate the total energy density between the two plates using the mathematics of quantum physics, you get the infinite sum 1+8+27+64...

Are the equations of QM that result in the divergent series correct?  If so, then let's proceed:

Quote

This infinite sum is also what you get when you plug the value x=-3 into the Euler zeta function:

S(-3) = 1 + 1/2^{-3} + 1/3^{-3} + 1/4^{-3} + ... = 1+ 8 + 27 + 64 +... .

That’s unfortunate, because the sum diverges (it does so even quicker than than S(-1)), which would imply an infinite energy density. That’s obviously nonsense.

Doesn't that also question the validity of QM?

Quote

But what if you cheekily assume that the infinite sum equals the Riemann zeta function, rather than the Euler zeta function, evaluated at x=-3?  Well, then you get a finite energy density. That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force.

But he stated above that "classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales".  He contradicted himself by saying CM doesn't deal with small scales and then said CM made a prediction about small scales (ie that there should be no force).

Quote

But here’s the surprise. When physicists made the experiment they found that the force did exist — and it corresponded to an energy density exactly equal to zeta (-3)!

Ah, so QM is redeemed by experimental confirmation and mathematically divergent series then realistically converge by evidence of experimentation.  What that is telling me is that math does not always accurately reflect reality.

Quote

This surprising physical result is known as the Casimir effect, after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir.

Take a moment to take this in. Quantum physics says the energy density should be  [ S(-3) = 1+8+27+64+... . ]         


That’s nonsense, but experiments show that if you (wrongly) regard this sum as the zeta function zeta (x) evaluated at x=-3, you get the correct answer.

Umm... I thought he was trying to disprove 1+2+3+4+... = -1/12... not prove it.

It seems in the construct of mathematics, the sum should be infinite.

But in the real world, the sum is -1/12

Quote

So it seems that nature has followed the ideas we explained above. It extended the Euler zeta function to include values for x that are less than 1, by cleverly subtracting infinity, and so came up with a finite value. That’s remarkable!

Yup!

So where is the disproof?  

The closest I saw was the objection to 1-1+1-1+1-1... not being equal to 1/2, which lots of youtube commenters also resonated with.  But I'm not sure it matters much because if S1 = 1, then S2 = 1/2 and S = -1/6.  If S1 = 0, then S2 = 0 and S = 0.  Neither answer is infinite.

I've given it some thought and have decided, based on the Thomson Lamp where the state cannot be between on and off in the finite world, that in the infinite-world the only way to correctly express the right state is by averaging the two states.  The reason for that is if we ever stop the sequence to find a finite answer, then it is not the result of the infinite sequence.  So, in other words, we need the result of a sequence that is never stopped to see what the result is... and the only answer is 1/2 because both 0 and 1 are answers to finite sequences and conditional on discrete states.  

This shouldn't be surprising to people who believe a particle can exist in a superposition and travel through 2 slits at once in order to interfere with itself.  If you don't object to that, then how can you object to a lamp being in 2 states simultaneously due to the expression of an infinite progression on a finite medium?  It seems to me that if you reject one, you must reject the other.

Anyway, I've yet to see a good reason to dismiss the assertions of the video.

Here is a second proof:

 

And here is another perspective:

He has a good point around 6:30 by asking "does (-1)^.5 exist?"  Obviously it's nonsense, yet we derive useful correlations to reality by employing it mathematically.

I know folks hate watching videos others post, but that 2nd one is quite good and he is very objective.  Anyway, the site has the capability to host videos and I assume that is for some purpose.

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no single theory or model that applies to all cases.

There should be.

Quote

Quantized bits are what we call particles, which is a term that people are already used to. Do you call a golf ball a quantized bit of a wave? No, you call it a ball, because the particle nature is what we are going to observe. We are used to waves, and to particles.

A golf ball is something I could call a particle.  A golf ball does not go through two holes at one time to interfere with itself (although buckyballs do, which causes me to rethink the atom itself.)

Quote

Energy is a property. If you want to talk about fundamental reality, we have a philosophy section.

Are you saying physics is independent from reality?  I'll be joining the philosophy section when I have time to come up for air in this department.

Quote

We don't get to tell nature how to behave.

Yes we do!  I'm telling nature that it cannot have bright darkness.  Nature does what is possible and impossibilities are not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Strange said:

In this case, it was just a mathematical abstraction. If you want to consider a single frequency then the waveform has to extend for infinity. If you consider a shorter signal, then it will consist of a mixture of frequencies. (This, incidentally, is the basis of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)

I don't understand what "shorter signal" means.  Can you elaborate more on the basis of the uncertainty principle as it relates to this topic?  Thanks!

Quote

Infinity may exist in reality if the universe is infinite. 

Of course, but I see an infinite universe as an impossibility.  Obviously, there would be no conservation of energy if energy were infinite.  Is that right?

I could attack this in infinite ways ;)

The joke is to never argue infinity with a mathematician because it never ends lol

Quote

I agree, calling quanta of light "particles" can lead to confusion. But in the case of electrons and all the other fermions, it seems natural to call the particles. So it seems we are stuck with the terminology.

That reminds me of something someone once said.... 

1dcc4ed89ee51072bfd240285325d9de.jpg

Quote

But photons are neither waves not particles. They have some wave-like properties (e.g. we can measure their wavelength) and they have some particle-like properties (their interactions are post-like and indivisible).

What do you mean by "post-like"?

"Indivisible" in what sense?  Waves are indivisible in the sense that splitting a wave results in the same thing we began with.  E=hf so no matter how many times we split the wave, E is the same.

Particles will always be divisible because there will always be the question of what composes the particle.  How can there be a smallest particle?  And now we have the infinite divisibility problem.

I'm far from being an expert in this, but all in all, it seems to me that it's better stated that waves exhibit particle-like behavior rather than particles with wave-like behavior.  People are already too conditioned to think in terms of tangibles and should be reconditioned from the start to think in terms of waves.  That's my opinion; whatever it's worth; not much I'm guessing lol.

Quote

But they are neither waves nor particles.

What is the evidence for photons being particles?  If we refute all of it, then will it mean photons are waves?  

The best evidence I've seen so far is that of spin in the experiment where a magnetic wave was used to veer the photon (or electron; I can't remember) off course and a spiral trajectory was observed indicating the particle was spinning.  Is that accurate?  I'm not sure how to refute that one.  I'll have to think on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, studiot said:

If you have further questions then start some additional threads to ask them That is the purpose of ScienceForums.

I will once we exhaust these topics.  I have too many lines in the water right now.

Quote

The only pain in the butt is having to delete the garish video at the end of the quote.

LOL!  I like to see you making jokes while admonishing me; somehow that makes it better. :)

Quote

Reality is not a scientific term. Scientists deal in observed 'facts' and deduce connections between them.
We have actually has many threads discussing the terminology of 'reality and existance' at ScienceForums.
Personally I am of the opinion that Philosophy is better equiped to discuss these than Science and the ordinary apparatus of the English Language better suited to the discussion.

You're doing it again... more distinctions (science vs philosophy).  I know you're really logical and want to systemize and categorize, and that is a fantastic way to arrive at insightful revelations, but I'm fighting that tendency in myself because I believe everything is connected; the universe is the atomos (the indivisible whole).  I know, I know... there exists a philosophy section for this sort of talk.  But if there is no distinction between philosophy and science, then where is the objection?

Science is a subset of philosophy because in order to practice it, you have to first develop a philosophy of how you intend to practice it.  So when you say "Scientists deal in observed 'facts' and deduce connections between them.", then that is your philosophy about science.  I'm just saying these distinction are arbitrary and subjective.

I often think of the quote from Einstein: 

Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism.2C_atheism.2C_and_deism

What did he mean by "lack of transcendental outlook?"

I think it means he doesn't want people's own fences to confine them and it may be preferable to believe erroneously than to be incapable of thinking outside the box.

(Normally I don't quote Einstein, but today must be Einstein day.)

How about this quote:  "A fool who persists in his folly will eventually become wise." - Blake.

It seems that being wrong may not be such a big deal, but being incapable of being right is a big deal.

Quote

Models are never perfectly accurate. The only perfectly accurate model of anything is the thing itself.

Now that is insightful!  Good point!

Quote

I have already said in the originating post that mathematical solutions to the classical wave equation extend to infinity in both directions.
Infinity is a perfectly respectable mathematical abstract construct with well defined (mathematical) properties.
There is nothing to say that observable phenomena have to conform to this construct.

Yup, that's how I see it too.

Quote

The lamp is a poor model that demonstrates the mathematical truth that discontinuous functions do not obey the classical wave equation.

Poor model?  I thought it was illuminating ;)  In reality, there is no such thing as a discontinuity, but rather a continuous transition to a discrete state.  If we turn a lamp from on to off by breaking the connection, then as the switch begins to separate, the current will arc across the gap and already affect the state of the lamp.  As the switch is moved further, the resistance will grow until it converges to a discrete state of "disconnected".  Still, it takes time for the effects to travel to the bulb and all of it happens as a smooth continuity well-under the speed of causality.  So in fact, or in reality, there are more states than just two.  For instance, there is the state where the filament in the bulb is 90% illuminated.  So there are infinite states just like a ruler has infinite divisions, but it's not infinite states and is instead a continuous "happening".

In reality, when the speed of the flicking of the switch = the speed of the fastest bit of the system, there will be no such thing as a change in state and any increase in speed from there will be meaningless.  What happens when the switch is opened and closed faster than light can travel?  Clearly, that's impossible, but doesn't the problem necessitate that?  The amount of time between states is infinitesimally small, which is a violation of the speed of causality.  But in the realm of mathematics, there are no such speed limits and there is the problem and where math fails to represent reality.

Quote

How many more times?

The classical wave equation extends to infinity in both directions.
This gives rise to various difficulties in various branches of Science and Mathematics.
We can list and discuss these if you like.
But I warn you the discussion will get very mathematical very quickly and I will see a mathematical replies, not wooly wishful thinking.

Fire away!  I have a background in math, but haven't practised in some time, so I'm rusty, but can catch up.  Anyway, I'm not daunted and I look forward to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I don't understand what "shorter signal" means.  Can you elaborate more on the basis of the uncertainty principle as it relates to this topic?  Thanks!

Not of infinite duration. A single frequency must last for an infinite time to be a single frequency. A "real" signal will not be of infinite duration and therefore cannot be a single frequency.

I don't think the uncertainty principle is particularly related to this topic, it is just another example where the Fourier transform means that if you define one thing more precisely (e.g. a shorter signal or the position of a particle) then the complementary property (e.g. bandwidth or momentum) is less precise.

Quote

Of course, but I see an infinite universe as an impossibility.  Obviously, there would be no conservation of energy if energy were infinite.  Is that right?

You are, of course, free to believe that. But there is no scientific basis for it being impossible.

Energy, and specifically energy conservation, is not well defined on cosmological scales anyway.

Quote

What do you mean by "post-like"?"Indivisible" in what sense?  Waves are indivisible in the sense that splitting a wave results in the same thing we began with.  E=hf so no matter how many times we split the wave, E is the same.

Sorry: autocorrect error. Should have been "point-like". So a photon has no well-defined position in space (or size). So, for example, it is able to go through both slits of a double slit experiment. But, when it interacts, it always happens at a single pint (an atom in the detector, for example).

A classical wave is divisible; it can split at the surface of a piece of glass with half passing through and half being reflected. An individual photon cannot split like that. It is either entirely reflected or entirely passes through. An atom can absorb a whole photon or nothing. This is why the photoelectric effect was so important to establishing the quantised nature of light.

Quote

Particles will always be divisible because there will always be the question of what composes the particle.  How can there be a smallest particle?

As far as we can tell, there are a number of fundamental particles (electrons, photons, quarks, etc) that are indivisible.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

What is the evidence for photons being particles?

That is an odd question when I have just said they are not particles. :)

Quote

The best evidence I've seen so far is that of spin in the experiment where a magnetic wave was used to veer the photon (or electron; I can't remember) off course and a spiral trajectory was observed indicating the particle was spinning.  Is that accurate?  I'm not sure how to refute that one.

You may be describing the Stern-Gerlach experiment which showed that spin is quantised and is not directly related to the particle-like nature. (Unless you consider that the fact that all quantum properties are quantised to be an indication of the particle-ness of quanta.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

But if there is no distinction between philosophy and science, then where is the objection?

There is a clear distinction: science deals in testable models, philosophy doesn't.

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

What did he mean by "lack of transcendental outlook?"

I think it means he doesn't want people's own fences to confine them and it may be preferable to believe erroneously than to be incapable of thinking outside the box.

He means, he doesn't think it is reasonable to think that what we can see and measure is all there is. That there is something "beyond" that. Something spiritual or numinous. 

(I hope you are not trying to defend the "I don't know anything about it but I am thinking outside the box" argument of crackpots. Who don't even know where the box is or what is in it.)

Quote

In reality, there is no such thing as a discontinuity, but rather a continuous transition to a discrete state.

If your lamp emits single photons, then it either emits a photon or doesn't. It can't emit a partial photon or emit a photon gradually. The photon is either there or it isn't.

Edited by Strange
add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Doesn't that also question the validity of QM?

They either misrepresented or under-represented the solution. You can subtract the two series (energy density of free space - energy density between the plates). If you only look at the excluded states, you get a convergent series and a finite value. 

Quote

But he stated above that "classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales".  He contradicted himself by saying CM doesn't deal with small scales and then said CM made a prediction about small scales (ie that there should be no force).

That's not a contradiction. CM doesn't deal correctly with small scales. It obviously tries to, but it fails.

Quote

There should be.

You don't get to tell nature how to behave. But by all means, go and develop one. If you are unwilling or unable, I don't think anyone will give much weight to your opinion about what "should" be the case.

Quote

A golf ball is something I could call a particle.  A golf ball does not go through two holes at one time to interfere with itself

That's kinda the point here.

Quote

(although buckyballs do, which causes me to rethink the atom itself.)

Is a buckyball a particle?

Quote

Are you saying physics is independent from reality?  

Did I say that? No, I did not. So I am not saying that. 

Quote

Yes we do!  I'm telling nature that it cannot have bright darkness.  Nature does what is possible and impossibilities are not possible.

No, we most certainly do not. Nature doesn't dictate logical inconsistencies — that's something of our own construction. But you can't tell nature to have things spontaneously fall up, or create energy. The impossibilities are nature's doing, and not from any decision people have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Not of infinite duration. A single frequency must last for an infinite time to be a single frequency. A "real" signal will not be of infinite duration and therefore cannot be a single frequency.

A sine wave generator is not outputting a single frequency?  Why all the effort to distinguish single frequencies and claim they are infinite?  I can't see the goal where this is leading and I can't see how the distinction is possible.  If a single frequency must last for infinite time, then there will never come a day where infinite time has past and therefore single frequencies can never exist.  

19 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think the uncertainty principle is particularly related to this topic, it is just another example where the Fourier transform means that if you define one thing more precisely (e.g. a shorter signal or the position of a particle) then the complementary property (e.g. bandwidth or momentum) is less precise.

Oh I see.  That's an interesting observation.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

You are, of course, free to believe that. But there is no scientific basis for it being impossible.

If there were infinite energy and matter were created from it, then infinite energy would still remain.  Why is that not scientifically impossible?

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Energy, and specifically energy conservation, is not well defined on cosmological scales anyway.

I'd consider the loosest of definitions of energy conservation to be plenty sufficient to prevent the idea of infinite energy.  You wouldn't?

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Sorry: autocorrect error. Should have been "point-like". So a photon has no well-defined position in space (or size). So, for example, it is able to go through both slits of a double slit experiment. But, when it interacts, it always happens at a single pint (an atom in the detector, for example).

I don't see why that necessitates a particle.  Interaction determines point-like behavior because interaction of a wave with an atom determines discrete energy level differences at resonance which absorbs an entire photon.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

A classical wave is divisible; it can split at the surface of a piece of glass with half passing through and half being reflected. An individual photon cannot split like that. It is either entirely reflected or entirely passes through.

I just learned that a wave is not reflected, but re-emitted.  The original wave passes straight through and combines with the re-emitted wave to experience a shift in phase.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

An atom can absorb a whole photon or nothing. This is why the photoelectric effect was so important to establishing the quantised nature of light.

So because a wine glass will resonate at one frequency, then can we infer sound is a particle?  An atom will absorb when it resonates because the charges emit 180 degree waves that cancel the photon while all the energy of the photon will transfer to kicking the electrons up to the next level.  That doesn't mean the photon is a particle and it seems the fact that it is absorbed at all is evidence for it not being a particle.  Discreteness doesn't mean particle, does it?

19 hours ago, Strange said:

As far as we can tell, there are a number of fundamental particles (electrons, photons, quarks, etc) that are indivisible.

Have a look at the answer designated by 179 upvotes by David Z https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81190/whats-inside-a-proton?rq=1

A proton is really made of excitations in quantum fields (kind of like localized waves).

If quarks are localized waves, then being indivisible is splitting a wave only to have the same thing you began with.  It's like trying to cut the temperature in half by cutting the cake in half.

And if we pull two quarks apart, a new pair pops into existence from the energy used to pull the quarks apart.

FWD to 3:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls   The whole video is good actually.

 

19 hours ago, Strange said:

That is an odd question when I have just said they are not particles. :)

Not really, look at the previous quote of what you said ;)

19 hours ago, Strange said:

You may be describing the Stern-Gerlach experiment which showed that spin is quantised and is not directly related to the particle-like nature. (Unless you consider that the fact that all quantum properties are quantised to be an indication of the particle-ness of quanta.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

Yes, that's the one.  So it was a silver atom.

Well, again, the quantumness doesn't necessitate particleness; it only necessitates a discrete part of a continuum.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

There is a clear distinction: science deals in testable models, philosophy doesn't.

I suppose we need to define "testable", but your philosophy appears to be that "testable" is independent from reason as if we can't obviously test the hypothesis of a true lie and determine it does not exist without resorting to empirical evidence.  That's like saying "All statements must be backed by empirical evidence; except this one."  Science grew out of philosophy like an apple grew from an apple tree.

The top answer here saved me some typing https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-a-subset-or-superset-of-scientific-practice

19 hours ago, Strange said:

He means, he doesn't think it is reasonable to think that what we can see and measure is all there is. That there is something "beyond" that. Something spiritual or numinous. 

I think what you said is close to what I said, except that I wouldn't have said "that there IS something beyond" because we can't assume there is something beyond, but it is better to assume there is something beyond than to be sure that there is not.  Do you see what I am trying to say?

It is better to believe there is a god and to be wrong than to believe there isn't because our paradigm prevents transcendental thinking.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

(I hope you are not trying to defend the "I don't know anything about it but I am thinking outside the box" argument of crackpots. Who don't even know where the box is or what is in it.)

I see what you're saying, but the problem isn't thinking outside the box or not knowing where the box is, but in not being able to admit error.  "Oh well, it was an interesting idea, but back to the drawing board."  That's the crackpot and they're really no different than anyone else because the ego is common to all and, coincidentally, it also has particle and wave-like properties in that it is indivisible and infinite in range ;)

quote-it-ain-t-what-you-don-t-know-that-

 

19 hours ago, Strange said:

If your lamp emits single photons, then it either emits a photon or doesn't. It can't emit a partial photon or emit a photon gradually. The photon is either there or it isn't.

How do you know a photon is not emitted gradually?  Wouldn't instantaneous emission violate the "faster than light transmission of information" thing?  The speed of causality?  Unless, of course, by photon you mean the very start of a waveform, but even the beginning had a cause.  How can there be discontinuities in the transfer of information?  If there were, then the info would be lost.

Good conversation, Strange.  If guys named Strange are normal, then I'll have to watch out for guys named Norm :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2017 at 7:38 AM, swansont said:

They either misrepresented or under-represented the solution. You can subtract the two series (energy density of free space - energy density between the plates). If you only look at the excluded states, you get a convergent series and a finite value. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say there.  If the zeta function describes what happens between the plates and the answer is unintuitive, but experiments confirm the unintuitive answer, then how does that prove the answer should be intuitive?

Quote

That's not a contradiction. CM doesn't deal correctly with small scales. It obviously tries to, but it fails.

It is a contradiction.  He said:

"classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales"

"That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force."

If he has already determined that CM cannot make predictions, then why is he using it to make predictions?

Essentially he has said, "There shouldn't be an attractive force because CM says so even though CM has no capability to say anything."

Quote

You don't get to tell nature how to behave.

As much as you say that, I beginning to wonder if it's some sort of wishful chant lol

I tell nature how to behave all the time.  That's the essence of farming... we bring in plants that nature would prefer to be elsewhere and force them to grow with fertilizers and then fight nature's desire to have to bugs eat the crops with insecticides, etc, etc.  Human existence is essentially telling nature what to do.  It's exceedingly rare to find someone who lives in harmony with nature.

Quote

But by all means, go and develop one. If you are unwilling or unable, I don't think anyone will give much weight to your opinion about what "should" be the case.

I think your thinking is erroneous.  If I say there should be a unified theory and you say most people will disagree with my sentiment, then I'm betting you are wrong in that prediction.  Because, if you are right, then there would be no motivation to find one.  You are essentially saying that it's better to have 2 theories than 1.

There should be a lot of things and just because I can't solve the world's problems does not make what should be any less true.

Quote

That's kinda the point here.

So you agree with me then that a particle, like a golf ball, cannot go through two slits at the same time?

Quote

Is a buckyball a particle?

I'm not sure.  Once upon a time I thought it was, but now I don't know.  Since it can go through 2 slits at once, I suppose it is not.

Quote

Did I say that? No, I did not. So I am not saying that. 

You said, "Energy is a property. If you want to talk about fundamental reality, we have a philosophy section."

I said, "Are you saying physics is independent from reality?"

Your reply is "no".

So if I want to talk about reality, why must I leave the physics section to do so?

Quote

No, we most certainly do not. Nature doesn't dictate logical inconsistencies — that's something of our own construction. But you can't tell nature to have things spontaneously fall up, or create energy. The impossibilities are nature's doing, and not from any decision people have made.

Falling up is not logically impossible, but having an 'up' without a 'down' is impossible.  Can nature create a one-sided coin?  Nature does what it wants inside the bounds of what is possible and laws of nature are merely observed regularities because no law exists in nature except that of what is possible.  

So it would seem that physics itself has imposed upon nature by declaring regularities to be laws that nature cannot break and if we work under the assumption of not being able to tell nature how to operate, then we've conceded that the laws are not laws and could change at any moment and therefore we have no construct under which to function.  Can you imagine the ramifications if c were a little faster tomorrow and a little slower by the weekend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A particle isn't anything like a golf ball.

There is no corpuscular aspect to a particle. The pointlike properties of a field excitation (particle) is defined by the Compton wavelength. It is in essence a probability of a field value in excess of a quanta of energy under boundary confinement. With definable quantum numbers that also correspond to wavefunctions.

Lose the image of solid 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

 

Lose the image of solid 

 

I'd go farther. Lose the images of a particle and wave. They're just nice description words to make people feel happier about relating back to something they can see and understand. What we are dealing with is something different that has both wave-like and particle-like properties but is not one nor t'other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree there, takes a change in thinking but believe me it certainly makes any field theory I have ever studied far easier to understand. 

 Here is a lecture by Sean Caroll describing the field excitation descriptive.

there is a pinned thread on this forum with a discussion on the topic.

 

 

Just a side note as someone who has extensively studied SO(10) with regards to the Higgs field.

Sean is absolutely right it would be impossible to understand how it gives rise to mass without understanding the particle as a field excitation.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

A sine wave generator is not outputting a single frequency?  Why all the effort to distinguish single frequencies and claim they are infinite?  I can't see the goal where this is leading and I can't see how the distinction is possible.  If a single frequency must last for infinite time, then there will never come a day where infinite time has past and therefore single frequencies can never exist.  

You need to distinguish between mathematical abstractions (where we can deal with infinite signals of a single frequency) and practical reality (where a signal of a single frequency can never exist). Which is where this whole sideline started.

Quote

If there were infinite energy and matter were created from it, then infinite energy would still remain.  Why is that not scientifically impossible?

For it to be "scientifically impossible" you would need some evidence, not just an opinion.

Quote

I'd consider the loosest of definitions of energy conservation to be plenty sufficient to prevent the idea of infinite energy.  You wouldn't?

Definitely not. For one thing, a loose definition of conservation of energy just doesn't apply in GR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Quote

I don't see why that necessitates a particle.  Interaction determines point-like behavior because interaction of a wave with an atom determines discrete energy level differences at resonance which absorbs an entire photon.

It doesn't necessitate a particle. There is no particle!

But the interaction either absorbs the entire photon or nothing. If, as you say, it was just due to the discrete energy levels in the atom, then that could absorb half the energy of a photon, leaving a photon with half the energy. That never happens. Explaining this in terms of quantised fields was what gained Einstein his Nobel Prize.

Quote

Discreteness doesn't mean particle, does it?

Correct. Photons are not particles. (And neither are electrons.)

Quote

A proton is really made of excitations in quantum fields (kind of like localized waves).

That is true of all particles. (A proton is a bit more complex because it is a composite particle.)

Quote

If quarks are localized waves, then being indivisible is splitting a wave only to have the same thing you began with.  It's like trying to cut the temperature in half by cutting the cake in half.

Not sure I understand that analogy....

Quote

And if we pull two quarks apart, a new pair pops into existence from the energy used to pull the quarks apart.

Yes, but that is a slightly different thing. You can't pull two quarks apart because of confinement. But, more importantly, you can't split a quark or an electron or a photon.

Quote

Well, again, the quantumness doesn't necessitate particleness; it only necessitates a discrete part of a continuum.

All that "particleness" means is that the properties of a photon are quantised and indivisible. 

Quote

It is better to believe there is a god and to be wrong than to believe there isn't because our paradigm prevents transcendental thinking.

Getting off topic here (even if it is interesting) but I disagree. I don't think one should assume either position without evidence. You don't have to choose.

Quote

I see what you're saying, but the problem isn't thinking outside the box or not knowing where the box is, but in not being able to admit error.  "Oh well, it was an interesting idea, but back to the drawing board." 

Good point. (Although the latter problem originates from the first: if you don't know what you don't know, then why would you admit you are wrong!)

Quote

How do you know a photon is not emitted gradually?  

Because they are indivisible! Actually, I think there have been attempts to measure the time it takes for a photon to be emitted, from what I remember, the lower bound on the time was less than the experimental error (in other words, effectively zero).

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I tell nature how to behave all the time.  That's the essence of farming... we bring in plants that nature would prefer to be elsewhere and force them to grow with fertilizers and then fight nature's desire to have to bugs eat the crops with insecticides, etc, etc.

You are not telling nature what to do, you are working within the bounds of what nature will allow. If you could tell nature what to do, you would grow your crops without seed or fertiliser and have them ready for market in 3 days. And perfect, because you would just tell the bugs to leave them alone. As it is, you fight a constant battle to get the best you can from nature, but she holds all the cards and defines the rules of the game.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You said, "Energy is a property. If you want to talk about fundamental reality, we have a philosophy section."

I said, "Are you saying physics is independent from reality?"

Your reply is "no".

So if I want to talk about reality, why must I leave the physics section to do so?

Physics is dependent on reality (although there are some philosophers who would disagree - at least with the way that is worded). But it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about reality. It doesn't even tell us that "reality" exists (hence the previous parenthetical comment). We have no way of knowing what reality is or if it exists. All we know about is what our senses tell us. Physics (science in general) isn't about "truth" or what is "really" there. It just formalises the models we get from our senses and uses it to build models of the world we perceive. It doesn't mean that world is anything like our models, nor even that it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

 How do you know a photon is not emitted gradually?

Because we've done experiments that preclude this possibility.

Quote

 Wouldn't instantaneous emission violate the "faster than light transmission of information" thing?

Not gradual ≠ instantaneous

It just means short amount of time

 

9 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say there.  If the zeta function describes what happens between the plates and the answer is unintuitive, but experiments confirm the unintuitive answer, then how does that prove the answer should be intuitive?

When did I claim the answer was intuitive? That wasn't what I was attempting to show.

Quote

It is a contradiction.  He said:

"classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales"

"That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force."

If he has already determined that CM cannot make predictions, then why is he using it to make predictions?

I've already explained what was meant in that context. Classical physics incorrectly predicts effects at small scales. That's what was meant.  Not that is is impossible to make a prediction, but that the predictions are unreliable and often flat-out wrong. Saying you can't do something doesn't necessarily imply it's impossible.

Quote

Essentially he has said, "There shouldn't be an attractive force because CM says so even though CM has no capability to say anything."

Almost. CM says no force, but CM is wrong, as is often the case when applied at these scales.

Quote

As much as you say that, I beginning to wonder if it's some sort of wishful chant lol 

I tell nature how to behave all the time.  That's the essence of farming... we bring in plants that nature would prefer to be elsewhere and force them to grow with fertilizers and then fight nature's desire to have to bugs eat the crops with insecticides, etc, etc.  Human existence is essentially telling nature what to do.  It's exceedingly rare to find someone who lives in harmony with nature.

You sound like Shifu in Kung Fu Panda

 "I can control when the fruit will fall. And I can control... [Tosses the peach in the air and chops it in half] ...Where to plant the seed."

And I respond

"But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach."

IOW, you will always work within the laws of nature. You don't control them, and you don't get to decide what they are.

Quote

I think your thinking is erroneous.  If I say there should be a unified theory and you say most people will disagree with my sentiment, then I'm betting you are wrong in that prediction.  Because, if you are right, then there would be no motivation to find one.  You are essentially saying that it's better to have 2 theories than 1.

There should be a lot of things and just because I can't solve the world's problems does not make what should be any less true.

Depends on what you mean. One interpretation of the statement is that there should already be one. Which is an unreasonable expectation. 

Quote

 So if I want to talk about reality, why must I leave the physics section to do so?

Because physics does not include discussions of what is real, or the nature of reality. If you want to talk about evolution, I'd ask you to leave the physics section, too.

Quote

Falling up is not logically impossible, but having an 'up' without a 'down' is impossible.  Can nature create a one-sided coin?

Sure. Have you ever heard of a Möbius strip?

Quote

 Nature does what it wants inside the bounds of what is possible and laws of nature are merely observed regularities because no law exists in nature except that of what is possible.  

Seems like a tautology, but yes. A simpler way of saying this is that you are unable to do the impossible. To claim otherwise is silly, no? So to put it in your terms, you don't get to tell nature what is possible or impossible.

Quote

So it would seem that physics itself has imposed upon nature by declaring regularities to be laws that nature cannot break and if we work under the assumption of not being able to tell nature how to operate, then we've conceded that the laws are not laws and could change at any moment and therefore we have no construct under which to function.  Can you imagine the ramifications if c were a little faster tomorrow and a little slower by the weekend?

We're not telling nature anything. We're telling people what we observe and infer from how nature behaves. I don't see how that makes it such that laws are not laws, or they could change at any minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

Because we've done experiments that preclude this possibility.

Not gradual ≠ instantaneous

It just means short amount of time

You contradicted yourself.  Either it is instant or it is not.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

When did I claim the answer was intuitive? That wasn't what I was attempting to show.

You were attempting to show that 1+2+3+... should be the intuitive answer of infinity or, anyway, much larger than -1/12.  "intuitive" was just a label to save time.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

I've already explained what was meant in that context. Classical physics incorrectly predicts effects at small scales. That's what was meant.  Not that is is impossible to make a prediction, but that the predictions are unreliable and often flat-out wrong. Saying you can't do something doesn't necessarily imply it's impossible.

Almost. CM says no force, but CM is wrong, as is often the case when applied at these scales.

The distinction that CM doesn't make reliable predictions at small scales is irrelevant because small scales was the topic and therefore CM should have never been mentioned in the entire article.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

You sound like Shifu in Kung Fu Panda

 "I can control when the fruit will fall. And I can control... [Tosses the peach in the air and chops it in half] ...Where to plant the seed."

And I respond

"But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach."

IOW, you will always work within the laws of nature. You don't control them, and you don't get to decide what they are.

I never implied a peach tree would produce apples, but planting a peach tree in the desert is fighting nature which is evidenced by the fact that you'd have to nurse it constantly just to keep it alive.  In harmony with nature is planting peaches in areas where peaches have evolved to live.  Laws of nature are observed regularities and some regularities are more regular than others and what we call a law of nature and what we call a preference of nature is just an arbitrary and artificial distinction.  We can break some laws for a while just like swimming against the current, but eventually the current will reassert itself.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

Depends on what you mean. One interpretation of the statement is that there should already be one. Which is an unreasonable expectation. 

Well there should be one.  You think it's unreasonable because I expect too much, but that doesn't change the fact that there should be one.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

Because physics does not include discussions of what is real, or the nature of reality. If you want to talk about evolution, I'd ask you to leave the physics section, too.

Look how this topic has evolved.  Do you really think anyone, besides the AI bots, will ever read this thread?  All this organization is wasted energy... we're lucky to have one person read it once.  It's more fruitful to have it evolve how it wants rather than try to control nature ;)

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

Sure. Have you ever heard of a Möbius strip?

I thought of that when I typed it and already knew a mobius strip is not a coin.

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

Seems like a tautology, but yes. A simpler way of saying this is that you are unable to do the impossible. To claim otherwise is silly, no? So to put it in your terms, you don't get to tell nature what is possible or impossible.

I shouldn't have to.  But in the day when they thought the atomos were indivisible particles, if I had said there is no such thing, then some guy would have said "You can't tell nature what to do."  You see, it's not nature who I am telling ;) 

On 9/25/2017 at 6:41 AM, swansont said:

We're not telling nature anything. We're telling people what we observe and infer from how nature behaves. I don't see how that makes it such that laws are not laws, or they could change at any minute.

Well, we know of no law saying that laws cannot spontaneously change.  All the laws are is observed regularities.  To assume that they are eternal and unbending laws is an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

For it to be "scientifically impossible" you would need some evidence, not just an opinion.

Do you have evidence to support that assertion?  All I can imagine that you could say is that the philosophy of science has demanded that all meaningful statements be supported by empirical evidence, which is itself just a philosophical construct without supporting empirical evidence.  Everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can't prove.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Definitely not. For one thing, a loose definition of conservation of energy just doesn't apply in GR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

I like this: (amusingly, the energy of a closed universe always works out to zero according to this definition)

What's the problem?  + + - = 0 and that's the way it ought to be otherwise there is something unaccounted for.  If there were infinite energy, then one infinite positive would not cancel the other because infinity - infinity is not zero.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

It doesn't necessitate a particle. There is no particle!

Good.  Glad we agree!

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

 If, as you say, it was just due to the discrete energy levels in the atom, then that could absorb half the energy of a photon, leaving a photon with half the energy. 

Why could it absorb half?  I never allowed for that with what I said.  I said it would absorb 100% of the photon because of resonance.  Resonance is the point of 180 degree wave cancellation and therefore 100% absorption.  That point of absorption, defined by the point of resonance, is what causes the energy levels of the electron to be what they are.  That is the assertion I would like for someone to explain to me why it is wrong.

3 people now have told me I am wrong, but none have showed me why I am wrong.  Why is it not that resonance determines the energy levels of the electron?

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

That is true of all particles. (A proton is a bit more complex because it is a composite particle.)

Composed of localized waves which is what a golf ball is composed of.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Not sure I understand that analogy....

Cutting a cake in half will not cut the temperature in half.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

You can't pull two quarks apart because of confinement. 

The guy I linked to said you could, but it would only result in the creation of 2 new quarks.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

All that "particleness" means is that the properties of a photon are quantised and indivisible. 

Cool.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Getting off topic here (even if it is interesting) but I disagree.

Copying statement here for reference: It is better to believe there is a god and to be wrong than to believe there isn't because our paradigm prevents transcendental thinking.

Why would you disagree?  By disagreeing, you are saying it is better to have a confining paradigm than to erroneously believe in god.

By having a confining paradigm, you cannot discover what's outside the paradigm.  But erroneously believing in god merely needs correction, yet the paradigm is still wide open.

Quote

I don't think one should assume either position without evidence. You don't have to choose.

Choosing to believe in god or not wasn't a part of it.  The problem was about what mindset to have and whether it is better to outright reject what doesn't have evidence or to believe what doesn't have evidence.  Both are logically wrong, but which is least wrong?  That was the point einstein was making which I feel was summed nicely by Blake in "A fool who persists in his folly will eventually become wise." 

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Good point. (Although the latter problem originates from the first: if you don't know what you don't know, then why would you admit you are wrong!)

Well, obviously, you admit you're wrong because you discover you're wrong.  If you don't discover it, then you can't admit it.  Discovering isn't the problem, it's not being able to admit error and it's particularly worrisome in folks who have devoted their whole lives to an idea because swallowing that pill is nigh impossible.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Because they are indivisible! Actually, I think there have been attempts to measure the time it takes for a photon to be emitted, from what I remember, the lower bound on the time was less than the experimental error (in other words, effectively zero).

I'd be interested in seeing those experiments.  Claiming they are indivisible in this context is effectively claiming they are particles that cannot be divided instead of claiming they are waves that make no sense to divide.  The reason a photon is indivisible is that it's a wave rather than a particle that cannot be divided and here you are using that "indivisible particleness" to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality because you think you may have seen experiments that say so (within some margin of error).  I'd like to see the experiments so I can sort out what is really happening.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

You are not telling nature what to do, you are working within the bounds of what nature will allow. If you could tell nature what to do, you would grow your crops without seed or fertiliser and have them ready for market in 3 days. And perfect, because you would just tell the bugs to leave them alone. As it is, you fight a constant battle to get the best you can from nature, but she holds all the cards and defines the rules of the game.

Telling nature what to do doesn't equate to verbal commands, but instead of telling bugs to leave crops alone, we spray insecticides which tells them to leave it alone.  People have grown crops without seed... ever hear of cloning? lol! They say "Plant pears for your heirs" because it takes decades before a pear tree will yield fruit when grown from seed, yet cloning a pear tree will yield pears the same year.

Farming is completely unnatural.  They cut down the trees and plants that have competed successfully to establish dominance and have replaced them with plants that have no chance for survival outside of the constant nursing we provide because they have evolved in an entirely different ecosystem.  They monkey with the dna, accomplishing who knows what, then turning the frankensteins loose on the planet.

Suffice it to say, telling nature what to do is what it means to be human.  That seems to be the purpose of intellect... to tell dumb nature how to be better.

On 9/25/2017 at 5:36 AM, Strange said:

Physics is dependent on reality (although there are some philosophers who would disagree - at least with the way that is worded). But it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about reality. It doesn't even tell us that "reality" exists (hence the previous parenthetical comment). We have no way of knowing what reality is or if it exists. All we know about is what our senses tell us. Physics (science in general) isn't about "truth" or what is "really" there. It just formalises the models we get from our senses and uses it to build models of the world we perceive. It doesn't mean that world is anything like our models, nor even that it exists.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Do you have evidence to support that assertion?

The scientific method is evidence based. Therefore to be "scientifically" impossible, you would need evidence. Obviously.

Interesting as it is, I am going to ignore the rest of the discussion of the scientific method as it is off-topic.If you want to continue that discussion, sort a thread in the philosophy section.

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Why could it absorb half?  I never allowed for that with what I said.  I said it would absorb 100% of the photon because of resonance.  Resonance is the point of 180 degree wave cancellation and therefore 100% absorption.  That point of absorption, defined by the point of resonance, is what causes the energy levels of the electron to be what they are.  That is the assertion I would like for someone to explain to me why it is wrong.

This does not sound like any explanation I have heard before. Do you have a mathematical model based on this that produces results that match the evidence? If not, it sounds like just a guess. A guess cannot be proved wrong. Only a model that makes specific predictions can be proved wrong (or shown to be consistent with observation).

But whatever the explanation, you appear to agree that photons are quantised and can't be partly absorbed. That is pretty much all the word "particle" conveys in this context.

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Cutting a cake in half will not cut the temperature in half.

I still don't see how that is an analogy for anything.

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I'd be interested in seeing those experiments.  Claiming they are indivisible in this context is effectively claiming they are particles that cannot be divided instead of claiming they are waves that make no sense to divide.  The reason a photon is indivisible is that it's a wave rather than a particle that cannot be divided and here you are using that "indivisible particleness" to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality because you think you may have seen experiments that say so (within some margin of error).  I'd like to see the experiments so I can sort out what is really happening.

So you are happy to say it is a wave that cannot be divided, and don't like the word particle. That's fine. There may even be plenty of physicists who agree (certainly with disliking the "particle" word).

I have no idea what you mean by "to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality". All quantum theory says is that the waves of electromagnetic radiation are quantised. You seem to agree with that. Where does magic or "discontinuity of reality" come into it.

It is important to realise that classical waves can be divided or split to form two waves with half the energy. You can see this with waves in water when they meet a barrier; with sound waves and (on the macro scale) with light waves. But in the case of electromagnetic waves, there is a smallest size they can be split into: the quantum of electromagnetic radiation or photon.

I emphasise that because I am not really sure if you understand or accept that yet.

(I have no idea how to find the experiments measuring the time taken for a photon to be emitted. I did a quick google and didn't see anything relevant.)

4 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Farming is completely unnatural.

Of course it isn't. It is completely natural - it uses nature to raise animals and grow crops. Humans have done it for millennia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You contradicted yourself.  Either it is instant or it is not.

Nobody said it was instant. It's not gradual.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

You were attempting to show that 1+2+3+... should be the intuitive answer of infinity or, anyway, much larger than -1/12.  "intuitive" was just a label to save time.

No, I was pointing out that there is an explanation of the Casimir force that doesn't involve a particular calculation.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

The distinction that CM doesn't make reliable predictions at small scales is irrelevant because small scales was the topic and therefore CM should have never been mentioned in the entire article.

CM was invented well before QM. That CM fails at small scales is often mentioned in such discussions.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I never implied a peach tree would produce apples

It's an example of telling nature what to do. Can you do this?

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

, but planting a peach tree in the desert is fighting nature which is evidenced by the fact that you'd have to nurse it constantly just to keep it alive.  In harmony with nature is planting peaches in areas where peaches have evolved to live.  Laws of nature are observed regularities and some regularities are more regular than others and what we call a law of nature and what we call a preference of nature is just an arbitrary and artificial distinction.  We can break some laws for a while just like swimming against the current, but eventually the current will reassert itself.

What laws can we break?

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Well there should be one.  You think it's unreasonable because I expect too much, but that doesn't change the fact that there should be one.

That comes across as dismissing the efforts of scientists who have worked on it, and yet you have done nothing to solve the problem. It's more than a little condescending in that view.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Look how this topic has evolved.  Do you really think anyone, besides the AI bots, will ever read this thread?  All this organization is wasted energy... we're lucky to have one person read it once.  It's more fruitful to have it evolve how it wants rather than try to control nature ;)

That's not your decision to make.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I thought of that when I typed it and already knew a mobius strip is not a coin.

There's nothing that precludes making a coin in that fashion. People have made Möbius bagels.

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

I shouldn't have to.  But in the day when they thought the atomos were indivisible particles, if I had said there is no such thing, then some guy would have said "You can't tell nature what to do."  You see, it's not nature who I am telling ;) 

Describing how nature behaves is not telling it what to do. 

7 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Well, we know of no law saying that laws cannot spontaneously change.  All the laws are is observed regularities.  To assume that they are eternal and unbending laws is an error.

How do you know it's an error? We have reason to be confident that they don't, especially in light of conservation of energy, which only works under time translation symmetry. Any evidence that the laws change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion...

The abstract concept of reality has always been based on our measuring capabilities, whether our senses of sight and touch, or large colliders and electron microscopes. And it evolves over time according to our 'measurements'. Can we say what reality really is, or will we ever be able to ? Probably not, the best we can do is build incomplete models which mimic some of the properties/circumstances of reality, and make some predictions from them.
I say some because of course the models have limited applicability as they are incomplete.
A good example is Newtonian gravity, which being incomplete, didn't apply to high energy/high mass situations. So A Einstein introduced GR, which is still incomplete, as it cannot deal with small separations and self-coupling. I have no doubt a quantum Gravity model will eventually be introduced, but I'm sure it will not be complete, as the only accurate model of reality would be reality itself.

The Reimann Zeta function is a perfectly consistent mathematical expression, and by luck it happens to model the Casimir effect. And sure, it's not intuitive. What was intuitive, and obviously wrong, was the infinite energy in the ultraviolet range in the emitted spectrum of a black body; but it just so happened that Max Planck took a 'shot in the dark" by non-intuitively introducing the quanta, and that model worked, and led to the paradigm shift that is quantum mechanics.
Notice the similarities ?

Similarly, it was over a hundred years ago that E Ruthefrord fired  He nuclei at gold foil and found that atoms are divisible. Previous to that we had thought for 2000 yrs that they are not. We currently think elementary particles are indivisible, and according to current models and our measurements, they are. Could that change ? Of course they could as our measurement capabilities increase. But current models work exceedingly well, and if future measurements indicate that they are not fundamental, a lot of currently accepted physics ( which works really well ) will have to be modified.
And that is what science has always done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Strange said:

The scientific method is evidence based. Therefore to be "scientifically" impossible, you would need evidence. Obviously.

Define evidence.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Interesting as it is, I am going to ignore the rest of the discussion of the scientific method as it is off-topic.If you want to continue that discussion, sort a thread in the philosophy section.

Why does it matter if it is off topic?  Why fight nature? ;)

16 hours ago, Strange said:

This does not sound like any explanation I have heard before. Do you have a mathematical model based on this that produces results that match the evidence? If not, it sounds like just a guess. A guess cannot be proved wrong. Only a model that makes specific predictions can be proved wrong (or shown to be consistent with observation).

Nevermind.  I'll figure it out or ask the question on quora or something.  Let's focus on other things.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

But whatever the explanation, you appear to agree that photons are quantised and can't be partly absorbed. That is pretty much all the word "particle" conveys in this context.

Yes

16 hours ago, Strange said:

I still don't see how that is an analogy for anything.

It's not important.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

So you are happy to say it is a wave that cannot be divided, and don't like the word particle. That's fine. There may even be plenty of physicists who agree (certainly with disliking the "particle" word).

Yup

16 hours ago, Strange said:

I have no idea what you mean by "to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality". All quantum theory says is that the waves of electromagnetic radiation are quantised. You seem to agree with that. Where does magic or "discontinuity of reality" come into it.

Either a photon pops into existence all at once or it evolves into existence over time.  Claiming a photon is a particle that cannot be divided necessitates that it pops into existence all at once because it cannot be divided (there can't be half a photon at one instance).  Therefore, there is a discontinuity in reality meaning the particle appears, fully formed, in one instant.  And since we can't have discontinuities in reality, then the photon cannot be a particle.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

It is important to realise that classical waves can be divided or split to form two waves with half the energy. You can see this with waves in water when they meet a barrier; with sound waves and (on the macro scale) with light waves.

How?  If E=hf, then how would energy be divided?  I've asked before for help in understanding how co2 can radiate IR in all directions, and if E=hf, then why does it matter that some of the IR goes to space and some to earth if E is purely a function of F.  It seems intuitive to divide a 360 radiation pattern into 90 degree sections and then say one section has 1/4 of the energy, but E is purely a function of F and can't be divided like that.  I've been confused for 2 weeks on this problem and have all but begged for someone to help.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

But in the case of electromagnetic waves, there is a smallest size they can be split into: the quantum of electromagnetic radiation or photon.

Not saying you're wrong, but what is the evidence for that?  I'm curious.  I wonder why it would be that there is a smallest size.  It's not that I don't believe it because it argues against infinitely smaller sizes and I find that sensible.  Could it have something to do with the smallest wavelength?  Since waves don't have a size, then maybe it's better to suggest it has something to do with a highest frequency.

If we take the highest-energy gamma ray known and then add more energy, what happens?  I'm guessing it gains mass which interacts with the Higgs field and, consequently, slows down to become what we call a "particle".  Perhaps a neutrino?  What do you think of that idea?

Anyway, if we work under the assumption that there is a highest frequency, then there is a smallest wavelength and that could be the reason there is a smallest size.  Thoughts?

16 hours ago, Strange said:

I emphasise that because I am not really sure if you understand or accept that yet.

No, I don't fully understand it.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

(I have no idea how to find the experiments measuring the time taken for a photon to be emitted. I did a quick google and didn't see anything relevant.)

Thanks for looking.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Of course it isn't. It is completely natural - it uses nature to raise animals and grow crops. Humans have done it for millennia. 

I think you may have to actually engage in farming or gardening to know what I'm talking about because "Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced and even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it." - John Keats.  It's like trying to describe what "red" means to a blind person and it's one of those instances where if you don't understand, then I can't explain it.  We'll have to drop this topic otherwise we'll keep going round and round and it's not that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Nobody said it was instant. It's not gradual.

You'll have to elaborate on the distinction because it's not immediately obvious and my mindreading machine is in the shop.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

No, I was pointing out that there is an explanation of the Casimir force that doesn't involve a particular calculation.

So you accept that 1+2+3+... = -1/12?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

CM was invented well before QM. That CM fails at small scales is often mentioned in such discussions.

Yes, but then he goes on to say "That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force."  There should be a force, which is ludicrous because an erroneous method of physics says there should be no force.  Therefore, why is it ludicrous that there should be a force?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

It's an example of telling nature what to do. Can you do this?

Can I make a peach tree produce apples?  Yes, it's called grafting and almost all fruit trees you buy will be grafted onto a different kind of tree.  Some folks have one tree producing several different kinds of fruit.

Could I make the apple portion of the tree produce another kind of fruit?  Not me personally, but I'm sure humanity can monkey with the dna and make it happen eventually.

Then you'll say it's the dna that represents nature and a tree will always produce what the dna says it will and now we're on a slippery slope where you'll always have a part of nature that you will call the law until that is broken and then you'll cling to the next more-fundamental law while never conceding how humanity pushes nature around.

You may say it's a law that information cannot be transmitted faster than light, but what would you say after we read one day that they've done it through quantum entanglement or who-knows-what?  Well, then it's a more-fundamental law governing the process.  And then we break that one and here comes yet another proclamation that it's an even-more-fundamental law.  On and on the slippery slope goes.

Now if we turn the slope the other way, then we can see all the "laws" we currently break today.  Or, should I say, all the regularities they once called laws.  The only law is what is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxi-IUnCN_8

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That comes across as dismissing the efforts of scientists who have worked on it, and yet you have done nothing to solve the problem. It's more than a little condescending in that view.

I watched, er, listened to this video about einstein last night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDFoYeyQ4Y

In it, they said he published a paper and almost no one cared.  If not for planck recognizing einstein, who knows where we'd be today.  In the video they said if einstein had gone to college, he would not have been very good at kissing-up to a senior professor and therefore we can thank our lucky stars that he was never subjected to university politics.  The way people operate and as tribalistic as they are, I feel entitled to be condescending.  No one wants to honestly learn or teach, but they want to strut around showing off their big egos.  If folks didn't act like such jerks, perhaps we'd be a little further along by now.

Boltzmann killed himself.  Galileo had to work around the church.  Newton gave lectures to empty classrooms.  Edison robbed Tesla.  The smartest man in the US piddles his time on a farm instead of being seized upon and utilized in productive capacities by universities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." - Howard H. Aiken.  That's gotta be the all-time best aphorism.

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not your decision to make.

Of course... more people throwing their weight around to hinder the free-exchange of ideas.  Make sense.  See above.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

There's nothing that precludes making a coin in that fashion. People have made Möbius bagels.

Anything to prevent being wrong LOL!

15 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you know it's an error? We have reason to be confident that they don't, especially in light of conservation of energy, which only works under time translation symmetry. Any evidence that the laws change?

I don't need evidence that laws change; you need evidence that they don't in order to call them laws.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Interesting discussion...

The abstract concept of reality has always been based on our measuring capabilities, whether our senses of sight and touch, or large colliders and electron microscopes. And it evolves over time according to our 'measurements'. Can we say what reality really is, or will we ever be able to ? Probably not, the best we can do is build incomplete models which mimic some of the properties/circumstances of reality, and make some predictions from them.
I say some because of course the models have limited applicability as they are incomplete.
A good example is Newtonian gravity, which being incomplete, didn't apply to high energy/high mass situations. So A Einstein introduced GR, which is still incomplete, as it cannot deal with small separations and self-coupling. I have no doubt a quantum Gravity model will eventually be introduced, but I'm sure it will not be complete, as the only accurate model of reality would be reality itself.

The Reimann Zeta function is a perfectly consistent mathematical expression, and by luck it happens to model the Casimir effect. And sure, it's not intuitive. What was intuitive, and obviously wrong, was the infinite energy in the ultraviolet range in the emitted spectrum of a black body; but it just so happened that Max Planck took a 'shot in the dark" by non-intuitively introducing the quanta, and that model worked, and led to the paradigm shift that is quantum mechanics.
Notice the similarities ?

Similarly, it was over a hundred years ago that E Ruthefrord fired  He nuclei at gold foil and found that atoms are divisible. Previous to that we had thought for 2000 yrs that they are not. We currently think elementary particles are indivisible, and according to current models and our measurements, they are. Could that change ? Of course they could as our measurement capabilities increase. But current models work exceedingly well, and if future measurements indicate that they are not fundamental, a lot of currently accepted physics ( which works really well ) will have to be modified.
And that is what science has always done.

That seems a well-articulated argument to preclude the belief in laws.  Yes, the atom was named such from the Greek atomos which means undivided which is from tomos that means divided.  Some philosophers consider the whole universe to be the atomos and any "things" or "events" inside are just arbitrary divisions of a continuous process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Why does it matter if it is off topic?  Why fight nature?

You might think you can tell nature what to do, but I suspect you will have less luck with the moderators here.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Either a photon pops into existence all at once or it evolves into existence over time.  Claiming a photon is a particle that cannot be divided necessitates that it pops into existence all at once because it cannot be divided (there can't be half a photon at one instance).  Therefore, there is a discontinuity in reality meaning the particle appears, fully formed, in one instant.  And since we can't have discontinuities in reality, then the photon cannot be a particle.

This is you telling nature how it is allowed to behave. You have invented a "discontinuity in reality" and decided it is impossible. However, a photon will continue to do whatever it does (whether that is gradual or instantaneous).

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

How?  If E=hf, then how would energy be divided?  

That equation describes the energy of a photon. Which can't be divided.

A classical waves can obviously be divided. You can see it happen. It would be silly to say it can't happen.

Quote

It seems intuitive to divide a 360 radiation pattern into 90 degree sections and then say one section has 1/4 of the energy

No just intuitive but obviously correct (assuming the source radiates omnidirectionally). 

Quote

but E is purely a function of F and can't be divided like that.

PHOTON.

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

Not saying you're wrong, but what is the evidence for that?  I'm curious.  I wonder why it would be that there is a smallest size.

You have just quoted the e=hf relation which defines the quantum for electromagnetic radiation. So you seem to both accept it and reject it. That's very, uhm ... quantum of you.

In terms of evidence, the first was Planck's solution for the black body spectrum followed by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/photoe/photoe.html

 

5 hours ago, BanterinBoson said:

If we take the highest-energy gamma ray known and then add more energy, what happens?  I'm guessing it gains mass which interacts with the Higgs field and, consequently, slows down to become what we call a "particle".  Perhaps a neutrino?  What do you think of that idea?

If you were to add energy to that gamma ray photon then it would become a higher energy (i.e. higher frequency) frequency photon. It would remain a photon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.