Jump to content

Energy Photon


Itoero

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Every photon travels at c, and its energy is not infinite, but dependent on its frequency alone. Somebody missing such fundamental knowledge of physics tries to convince seasoned physicists that refraction is a form of scattering???

Get a grip. It was just something I read on another forum and people seem to agree with it,...so I asked it.

 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Now you have shown very clearly to all of us that you are just making things up. I gave the pass, Swansont made the goal. The wave function of light can collapse when it interacts with matter. But nothing the like happens when light bends in a gravity field. It just follows its straight path, a geodesic, in spacetime.

I am wondering what you think about the state of your physics knowledge, sticking to your 'refraction is scattering' where several physicists here already told you x times that they are not the same. Especially when you start with such a question:

 That's nonsense. You should try to get out of your classical view of things. In quantum physics, force fields (elektromagnetic and gravitational) are made of particles/quanta. You people deny the quantum world in classically described phenomena.

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2017 at 6:17 PM, Itoero said:

That's nonsense. You should try to get out of your classical view of things. In quantum physics, force fields (elektromagnetic and gravitational) are made of particles/quanta. You people deny the quantum world in classically described phenomena.

That has nothing to do with gravitational lensing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Strange said:

That has nothing to do with gravitational lensing.

Yes it does. But it's not surprising that you think that. A gravitational force field exist out of quanta. When light interacts with a force field, the photons scatter....this is gravitational scattering. The graviton is an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. The existence of a graviton is I think not (sufficiently) proven.  But that doesn't matter, refraction (this is not gravitational lensing) reflection, diffraction, doppler effect...are abouut observable wave behavior and have its origins in scatteering.  I don't understand why you people can't understand this.

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

A gravitational force field exist out of quanta.

Citation needed. 

5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

When light interacts with a force field, the photons scatter....

Citation needed.

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The graviton is an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.

We don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I don't understand why you people can't understand this.

Because it is not true.

 

I will suggest the mods move this to Speculations (and maybe change title to "Stuff Itoero has made up").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interaction light-'gravitational field' is not defined, the interaction light-'particles that form refraction' is defined.  There is no point in discussing gravitational lensing in this thread.

Again, the interaction light-H2O causes Rayleigh scattering in our atmosphere. When the concentration of H2O rises the scattering causes refraction. Do you deny this? If you deny it, then tell me why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The interaction light-'gravitational field' is not defined

It is defined in a theory called "General Relativity". It has been around for over 100 years. I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

9 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Again, the interaction light-H2O causes Rayleigh scattering in our atmosphere. When the concentration of H2O rises the scattering causes refraction. Do you deny this? If you deny it, then tell me why.

No one is denying that. You are told that every time you ask. Why do you keep asking the same stupid question? Do you genuinely not understand anything that is said to you?

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

A gravitational force field exist out of quanta.

If there was any support for this, it would have made headline news. You know, like the time they thought neutrinos were faster than light. This would be a huge breakthrough. I don't think I would have missed it.

(Are you really going through the thread and giving negative votes to everyone who points out your errors?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

No one is denying that. You are told that every time you ask. Why do you keep asking the same stupid question? Do you genuinely not understand anything that is said to you?

I thought you were a kind person...So now you don't deny that refraction is just a form of scattering?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

So now you don't deny that refraction is just a form of scattering?

Refraction is not a form of scattering.

As you keep claiming this, it is about time you provided some evidence to support it.

You know, something informal like the Wikipedia page on refraction explaining that it is caused by scattering, or the the Wikipedia page on scattering saying that it results in refraction. Except that neither page says that, does it? Can you guess why that might be?

But maybe those pages are below the usual high standard of science pages on Wikipedia. Perhaps you would prefer to refer to a text book or some published papers that explain refraction as being a result of scattering? No? Nothing? I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

 Again, the interaction light-H2O causes Rayleigh scattering in our atmosphere. When the concentration of H2O rises the scattering causes refraction. Do you deny this? If you deny it, then tell me why.

Refraction is not caused by Rayleigh scattering.

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

I thought you were a kind person...So now you don't deny that refraction is just a form of scattering?

Oh, FFS. He was saying that nobody denies that Rayleigh scattering happens.

It's getting increasingly difficult to take the generous view that this twisting of what others say is not deliberate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

So now you don't deny that refraction is just a form of scattering?

!

Moderator Note

Enough. If you can't support your own arguments without resorting to logical fallacies, have the decency to say so, and stop wasting valuable time. We're trying to build something here, and you've brought your toy hammer.

Thread closed, warning point for Iotero for Persistent Fallacies. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.