Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi

As I explained before you need to add energy to an electron to get a photon. Do you understand how florescent bulbs work and why??

a reply to: ImaFungi

Keep in mind; I know I said the claims of 'this is all that exists'; and I did not say 'photons exist'; because I am waiting till you, or another potential smart person who reads this and knows how light exists; to fill in the blanks, of how light would have to exist in this reality I have depicted, in order for light to be created when the experiment begins;

You've asked this same question in about a dozen different ways, using different models, objects - whatever. The question was answered at least two dozen times to include reference material.

You need to go back to your drawing board (or blackboard), reread all the posts and figure out what you've missed. It seems that you haven't (or are unwilling to) developed a conceptualization or image of what everyone has been trying to convey to you.

Get a few books from Amazon and dive in. By now you should be able to answer most of your own questions. Or at the very least, know how to articulate a physics question coherently.

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The wound mechanism was set on a magic timer of sorts

If you put magic in, you get magic out, but physicists don't usually believe in magic, though they might appreciate a good magician/illusionist.

How must the mechanism have to been constructed, as to move the electrons (at all? to create photon?) in relation to one another to create photon?

You tell me, it's your fantasy. It's not how the real world works.

I am waiting till you, or another potential smart person who reads this and knows how light exists; to fill in the blanks, of how light would have to exist in this reality I have depicted, in order for light to be created when the experiment begins

It's a fantasy, not a reality and I'd have to see someone create light that way to believe it. I never have and I doubt I ever will.

You say you want to learn more about reality but then you dream up very unrealistic thought experiments that have no relation to reality. Your question reads to me like "If a 5 ton elephant could fly, what would be its period of rotation?". Not only can elephants not fly, but even if they could, their rotational period would depend on their angular momentum which isn't specified. So enough abstraction, talk about the real world sources of electromagnetic radiation.

First, a radio transmitter:
Transmitter

In electronics and telecommunications a transmitter or radio transmitter is an electronic device which, with the aid of an antenna, produces radio waves. The transmitter itself generates a radio frequency alternating current, which is applied to the antenna. When excited by this alternating current, the antenna radiates radio waves.

So it works like this, if the transmitter is near Niagara falls it's probably getting power from Niagara falls, which rotates generators that create electric power. The electric power is routed through various circuits and is ultimately used to wiggle the electrons back and forth in the radio antenna which radiates electromagnetic radiation. You want to know where that energy came from before it was emitted? From the water flowing over Niagara Falls turning electric generators. You can trace the source of that energy indirectly back to nuclear fusion inside the sun. But that's radio waves and you asked about light, which is higher frequency EM radiation.

Higher frequencies like visible light from the sun can be emitted via Planck's law as blackbody radiation though the sun isn't a perfect blackbody, but it's reasonably close (someone posted the spectrum a few pages back). As was already explained the photons we see coming from the sun are not the same photons that were emitted from the nuclear reactions at the core of the sun, which can involve much higher frequencies in greater percentages because of the nature of the nuclear reactions.

Incandescent bulbs also emit a blackbody spectrum of frequencies though at a lower temperature than the sun, and thus they radiate maybe 20 times as much heat as they do visible light.

Fluorescent bulbs do not emit a continuous blackbody spectrum as the light emitted is not a result of temperature. Here's a graph of the frequencies from a Fluorescent bulb and you can see frequency peaks related to the quantum mechanics of how these light sources work.

Most of the energy in photons from those typical lights can typically be traced to the sun except for the energy derived from nuclear fission.

Color temperature


These peaks tell us something about the light, and you can't explain them by wiggling electrons outside an atom like you are proposing to do.

So if you want to talk about light, pick a real light source. I don't know how to discuss the physics of a light source which may be physically impossible to build, which is apparently the basis for your question.

a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

As I explained before you need to add energy to an electron to get a photon. Do you understand how florescent bulbs work and why??

In my thought experiment, mister nimrod, I stated that there was a mechanical robot which had a mechanism of gears which is wound, wound, wound, wound, wound, wound wound, added energy, winding, wound, energy added, wound, wound wound, energy added, wound wound.

a reply to: Phantom423

I know what you do not know and you do not know this

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE ABSOLUTE MOST FUNDAMENTAL COMPREHENSION OF THE PUREST UNDERLYING TRUE ACTUAL SOMETHING SUBSTANCE SUBSTANTIAL ESSENCE ACTUAL REAL UNDERLYING FUNDAMENTAL ENERGETIC MATERIAL STUFFNESS OF THE ETERNAL STUFF AND HOW IT ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY PURELY EXISTS.

I am only trying to go beyond what you know.

I know you know what you know.

I know you know that machines exist and they utilize applications.

I am only interested in the most deepest digging.

I am only interested in what right now, is not known.

I am only interested in knowing what is not known.

a reply to: ImaFungi
You could always try to build your contraption that I claim is impossible, then you could possibly prove me wrong and educate the rest of the world. Regardless of the outcome, I'm pretty sure you'd learn something about reality in the process.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I am only interested in the most deepest digging.

I am only interested in what right now, is not known.

I have news for you. If you want to know what isn't known you either go into the lab and do the experiments or you learn the mathematics and work on it theoretically. You are willing to do neither.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Tell Einstein he wasnt allowed to use Gedanken

en.wikipedia.org...

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

a reply to: Phantom423

I am willing to have a conversation in front of a blackboard with someone who has learned the mathematics, and who is familiar with the nature of experiment;

I would be the imagination and intuition, they would be the memory, we would both be the mind, attempting to better know the reality it exists in.

I have the ability to make great progress right now. I refuse to waste years of time and brain space, becoming a robot that cannot solve the problems, I can now, by utilizing a great one of them.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Tell Einstein he wasnt allowed to use Gedanken

Now you're comparing yourself to Einstein?

People have actually built gedanken experiments from Einstein:

Einstein–Bohr recoiling double-slit gedanken experiment performed at the molecular level

The essence of Einstein–Bohr's debate about wave–particle duality was whether the momentum transfer between a particle and a recoiling slit could mark the path, thus destroying the interference. To measure the recoil of a slit, the slits should move independently. We showcase a materialization of this recoiling double-slit gedanken experiment by resonant X-ray photoemission from molecular oxygen for geometries near equilibrium (coupled slits) and in a dissociative state far away from equilibrium (decoupled slits). Interference is observed in the former case, while the electron momentum transfer quenches the interference in the latter case owing to Doppler labelling of the counter-propagating atomic slits, in full agreement with Bohr's complementarity.

Don't forget Alder's razor ""what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating".

By the way your source gives an example of why this razor is apt: Einstein did use gedanken experiments, and the real experiments showed he was wrong, as in the above article and as explained further in your source. So if you're trying to get at the ultimate truth, using gedanken experiments not actually performed seems like a very unsatisfactory way to pursue your goal. If Einstein couldn't get it right I doubt you have any chance at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This has been a successful means for you to ignore the content of my thought experiment, congratulations, you continue to know exactly what you know, perfect knowledge.

a reply to: ImaFungi
There's a difference between ignoring it, and reading it and concluding that it's totally unrealistic and as far as I know can't be performed. I did the latter, not the former, and I never claimed to have perfect knowledge. I'm always reading about new experiments trying to learn more about the real world and improve my imperfect knowledge, while you're busy dreaming up impossible scenarios that have no relation to reality.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you understand what an electron is;

And you understand what light is;

My thought experiment is only a means of you proving it;

Your conclusion that my thought experiment is bad;

Is a conclusion that your understanding of an electron and light is bad

Checkmate

a reply to: ImaFungi

If you understand what an electron is;

And you understand what light is;

My thought experiment is only a means of you proving it;

Your conclusion that my thought experiment is bad;

Is a conclusion that your understanding of an electron and light is bad

This is a very arrogant statement. You have someone who's obviously highly skilled in the field giving you a lot of information and answering your questions - and you're telling the OP that his "understanding" is deficient????

It's not up the OP or anyone else to prove your hypothesis - whatever that may be as I still don't understand what your question is. It's up to YOU to prove that YOUR idea is correct and at the same time, prove that everyone else, including Einstein, Bohr, Feynman and a few dozen more - are wrong.

Your attitude is diametrically opposed to a good scientist - who will tell you that we know everything - that's why we go into the lab or go the blackboard with equations. You, on the other hand, seem to know it all but are reluctant to describe it in a coherent manner.

As I said on several occasions, write up an abstract, describe an experiment, formulate the equations with proofs. Do all that and then you have some credibility. And it is about credibility - no one gets away with hot air in this business. Regardless that you think graduate education is irrelevant, the rest of us have spent years learning a skill whatever branch of science it may be. Years of very hard work, failures and some successes. The day you go in front of the graduate committee to defend your thesis is a day of reckoning - it's the summation of all your work, your ideas and your ability to put it all together into a acceptable publication. You have no idea what it takes in hard science.

So be a little respectful.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You, on the other hand, seem to know it all

I never said any such thing;

I only know the faults in reasoning, logic, comprehension, interpretation, and understanding of what others claim.

Which is why I said; ~5 hours in front of a blackboard with one of the most intelligent and passionate theoretical physicist in the field, and we could make progress in physics.

I know enough about the general models, theories and interpretations in physics, plus my imaginative, intuitive and philosophical abilities, to make statements and proofs which would aeffect this persons comprehension of reality, and together we would be able to make corrections in regards to the contradictions and misinterpretations and misunderstandings in the state of fundamental theoretical physics today.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you understand what an electron is;

And you understand what light is;

My thought experiment is only a means of you proving it;

Your conclusion that my thought experiment is bad;

Is a conclusion that your understanding of an electron and light is bad

Checkmate

Unless your adding energy to your electron you can shake it all day. Need to introduce a magnetic field to interact with the field of our electron because we need energy. This is what a device like a wiggler does I mentioned earlier it adds energy to our system.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am only interested in knowing what is not known.

But first, you have to understand what IS known. And you don't.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Tell Einstein he wasnt allowed to use Gedanken

en.wikipedia.org...

"it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.

Your Gedanker isn't as experienced or educated as Einstein's.