Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Bedlam


The lower the energy level of the photon, the less localized it is, effectively, it's bigger and mushier.

What is an example of the acceleration of a charged particle, that would result in such a low energy photon, less localized, bigger, mushier?

And the wave function is larger. It's not "fake". It's real, it's measureable, it's why you have different wavelengths of EM. Where do you think the 'wavelength' part comes from?

Wave function is a mathematical symbol, to organize the data of events over space and time; there is no real up an down wave, function;

You draw two points on a wall 5 feet apart and you label one A and the other B;

Then you throw different balls with different forces at different angles over different spans of time, and you plot these, and the plot looks like a wave; and then you say the balls you throw are a wave.

You've also seen radar dishes that are mesh. How can that be??!! After all, microwaves are photons! And yet, the thing works, unless it's all a big fake to fool you, personally.

I get it, it has to do with matter, the stabilities of matter, the frequency of photon; I am just still unclear as to exactly what a photon exactly is exactly. (and not according to definition, according to reality)

originally posted by: Bedlam
And it isn't. Nothing, especially the photon itself, is "wiggling up and down".

The wavelength is the physical distance the wave will traverse whilst making one complete cycle of its E or H field oscillation. And that is dependent on the speed of light in the medium you're propagating in, and the frequency.

"The wavelength is the physical distance the wave....." the wave... the wave... the wave...

What is a wave, if not related primally to the concept of 'up and down'?

No. Frequency is a rate, wavelength is a distance, totally different units. Although wavelength is dependent on frequency.

Wavelength is nothing but frequency, nothing to do with up and down waves; wavelength is a mathematical graphing tool with unfortunate name, improperly used to label photon and the frequency of its potential occurrences;

Ok so frequency and wave length are like saying a cylinder has tallness and wideness;

There is only 1 cylinder, it has 2 possible characteristics (many more possibly, but also 1 absolute characteristic, summed up in the word cylinder)

I throw different mass balls at the wall in between two points marked A and B, the points are 5 feet apart, sometimes I am 5 feet from the wall, something I am 10, sometimes 5 feet from point A, sometimes 10; I throw the balls at different forces;

If we only plotted frequencies of the ball hitting the wall, with angles, force, trajectory, and then considered the probabilities of what ball hitting near what point at what angle etc, totaled the forces, etc.

You can plot it in wave functions....

That does not mean the term and concept 'wave length' has anything to do with the physical reality of balls to the wall;

And it is a mistake, to then discuss and label reality as if there were real wave lengths; as there are real wave lengths in the sea; there are not real wave lengths of Em radiation;

originally posted by: Bedlam
No. All photons have the same 'force', although they may have different energy levels. The "wave" is the wave of E and H fields that are the components of the EM wave.

Maybe, they are part of the same force category, but they can interact with material at different forces, which you say is utilizing the force category to impart its quantity of energy, which may as well be said to be a quantity of force;

There is no such thing as an E field, there is no such thing as an H field, there is no such thing as an EM Wave.

The way the E and H field are described seems like God hand knit the universe;

Once again, my famous statement you ignore;

Either there is a real physical, material, therefore massive, value at every point in space; and that is your E and H field, but really it is just 1 field, the photon field; I would have no problem with that, if that is the theory and that is reality; But you seem to object to that;

If reality and truth is that there is not real material, physical realness at every point in space, I am fine with that;

But then if that is the case, you cannot say the E and H field are fields, or exist at every point in space;

If you do, you are not talking about reality, you are talking about a school boys dotted paper; it is an angels on a pin head theory in that case, you are making up useful fantasy to describe the shadows you see on platos cave; I am after only reality an truth so you can stop repeated what I already know about your incomplete knowledge, I am seeking further and further beyond what you know.

If there is not photon material at all points in space, waiting to be accelerated by a local charge;

I really do not think you comprehend how far off your comprehension of the universe might be;

It is possible stars (at least) (lets say our sun for example), propels quantas from the point A of sun, to the point B of Earth;

That there is not preexisting medium between the sun an earth, called E and H field, Called EM field

But yes, this is why field theory was created, because of my question;

and circular logic of axiom: We know for certain, fundamentally, that when a charge is accelerated, EM radiation is created!

From that axiom runs these two possibilities;

And the one I just proposed seems implausible, which is why field theory was created;

The seemingly implausible is that;

The sun has its own storage of photons; and then charges accelerate, the sun tosses photons away like they are balls; no medium, no field, just material quanta and movement (energy).

That is not a possibility, I presume because of the axiom: light cannot stand still;

It would not be long before all the un still light escaped leaving the sun and its accelerating charges without ammo to fling;

But could it be, that photons are parts of other quanta, photons are scrhapnel in a sense?

That when particle collide they may physically, materially, lose tiny portions of their real physical bodies; like how you can lose skin cells, and might that be photons?

No fields;

Ok well anyway, you say;

There are fields, there are real fields, there is a real physical medium, of resting photons that exist at every point in space; so when charge particles in the sun, accelerate, they disturb the resting photons, and this disturbance is carried through the resting photon meterial medium that exists at all points in space (E and H field... em field) and this medium always propagates its disturbances at a consistant speed, no matter what the disturbances characteristics are, no matter what size rock and with what force you drop it in the pond; no matter what size charge and what force it is accelerated with, the photon medium propogates the event, at the same speed;

That is good evidence for the E and H medium; the EM aether;

because if there was not that; then we woul have to imagine how the sun would toss photon balls from its body at the same speed every time;

Unless, light speed is not a constant;

Also, all the movements of the planet might factor;

There is no aether. You don't need one, it's self propagating. It's immediately obvious that EM is not like sound propagating in water, as your LCD works just fine.

Its immediately obvious to a fish that there is no such thing as water aether because its eyes work just fine.

If you want to look at photons as balls (I know you do!) then the number of balls per unit time is the EM energy density, but the size or maybe the weight of each ball is the individual photon energy. The metaphor is a bit strained. But a really high power microwave beam will have more photons per second but not as high an energy per photon as a small flashlight.

The difference between dropping a billion pebbles in a pond a minute, compared to 100 rocks a minute?

One is indeed saying that. And it's true, as evidenced by you testing the thing in real life. A microwave energy level photon has a larger wavelength than the holes, and thus can't pass through. It will reflect as though the holes were not there.

When you say wavelength, what are you physically describing about the photon? How much real physical space does this single photon take up?

No, this is said because it appears as a mirror to the microwave photons. The visible light photons are smaller, and will fit through the holes easily.

You said prior, what I was responding too, that microwave photons would fit through the hole, but their wavelength would not. and/or wave function would not;

If the microwave photon is bigger than the hole, meaning takes up more real volume/area than the hole; and it collides with the hole;

Does this alter the photon in any way, can the photon split, can part of it go through, can it become two smaller photons?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is an example of the acceleration of a charged particle, that would result in such a low energy photon, less localized, bigger, mushier?

One that's accelerated less, and has less energy to it.

You draw two points on a wall 5 feet apart and you label one A and the other B;

Then you throw different balls with different forces at different angles over different spans of time, and you plot these, and the plot looks like a wave; and then you say the balls you throw are a wave.

Not at all. The "wiggling up and down" thing is still strong with you. Let it go, Luke.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

What is a wave, if not related primally to the concept of 'up and down'?

You're still in wiggling up and down world. Consider - does sound wiggle up and down as it propagates through air? Is it a wave?

Wavelength is nothing but frequency, nothing to do with up and down waves; wavelength is a mathematical graphing tool with unfortunate name, improperly used to label photon and the frequency of its potential occurrences;

Ok so frequency and wave length are like saying a cylinder has tallness and wideness;

There is only 1 cylinder, it has 2 possible characteristics (many more possibly, but also 1 absolute characteristic, summed up in the word cylinder)

Not exactly, unless you bring in characteristics of the table top or something. Wavelength is dependent on the speed of the wave as well as the frequency. You can't have one without the other.

I throw different mass balls at the wall in between two points marked A and B, the points are 5 feet apart, sometimes I am 5 feet from the wall, something I am 10, sometimes 5 feet from point A, sometimes 10; I throw the balls at different forces...

If you ever shed your desire for waves to be up and down in a medium and photons to be little yellow balls of wood, you'll find understanding this easier.

And it is a mistake, to then discuss and label reality as if there were real wave lengths; as there are real wave lengths in the sea; there are not real wave lengths of Em radiation;

There absolutely are real wave lengths of EM. You can measure it yourself.

originally posted by: ImaFungi


If you do, you are not talking about reality, you are talking about a school boys dotted paper; it is an angels on a pin head theory in that case, you are making up useful fantasy to describe the shadows you see on platos cave; I am after only reality an truth so you can stop repeated what I already know about your incomplete knowledge, I am seeking further and further beyond what you know.

If there is not photon material at all points in space, waiting to be accelerated by a local charge;

I really do not think you comprehend how far off your comprehension of the universe might be;

My comprehension seems to match experimental data. You, on the other hand, are still clinging to up and down waves and luminiferous aether.

And it seems to disturb you that a photon can be created from another particle's energy state change. Although I'm still not sure why.

Its immediately obvious to a fish that there is no such thing as water aether because its eyes work just fine.

What sorts of waves do you get in a bulk medium? That is, not at the surface. Let's take your fish. What sorts of waves can that water propagate? At a basic level. Are they transverse, or longitudinal?

The difference between dropping a billion pebbles in a pond a minute, compared to 100 rocks a minute?

With photons, that's sounds more like a measure of brightness, not frequency.

When you say wavelength, what are you physically describing about the photon?

The length of travel that constitutes one cycle of E or H field oscillation.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But could it be, that photons are parts of other quanta, photons are scrhapnel in a sense?

That when particle collide they may physically, materially, lose tiny portions of their real physical bodies; like how you can lose skin cells, and might that be photons?

No. There is no conservation law on photons. Unlike material particles, for which there are quantum numbers which are preserved in all interactions relevant for normal human existence (i.e. outside particle accelerators), you can create and destroy photons as you please. Therefore, photons don't have to be 'pre-existing' anywhere, any more than the "wave" which a crowd does in a football game was stored underneath the bleachers by the groundskeeper.

originally posted by: mbkennel


No. There is no conservation law on photons.

I question every single aspect, of theory of fundamental physics. On the road to figuring out what is not understood and why;

You broken recordly relaying man declared axioms, when so much is not understood about the fundamentalality of these matters we are speaking of, does not progress sciences understanding.

There are problems with mankinds comprehension of the nature of reality, the physical existence and mechanics of realities substances.

It is possible part of the reason there are difficulities with the fundamental theories of physics is because people like you believe there is no conservation law on photons.

Unlike material particles, for which there are quantum numbers which are preserved in all interactions relevant for normal human existence (i.e. outside particle accelerators), you can create and destroy photons as you please. Therefore, photons don't have to be 'pre-existing' anywhere, any more than the "wave" which a crowd does in a football game was stored underneath the bleachers by the groundskeeper.

You create and destroy photons like you can splash a water wave;

The wave of the crowd is pre existing, as potential in the minds and bodies of the totality of people there;

No wave of the crowd without the crowd.

No wave of EM radiation, without preexisting material medium;

Thanks for furthering my point.

originally posted by: Bedlam
You're still in wiggling up and down world. Consider - does sound wiggle up and down as it propagates through air? Is it a wave?

A photon hits at second 1

a photon hits at second 1.1

a photon hits at second 1.12

a photon hits at second 1.13

Are frequency and wavelength terms to describe a single photon?

Or groupings of photons?


I hit a drum at second 1

I hit a drum at second 1.1

I hit a drum at second 1.12

I hit a drum at second 1.13


The photon is created via a quantity of force/energy

my drum hit occurs via a quantity of force/energy

What is the wave length of the drum; hmm, some of this difficulty may have to do with things rarely, if ever, 'vibrate' once;

1 hit of the drum, moves the drum face multiple times, like 1 drop of a rock moves the water face multiple ties;

This moves the air multiple times;

The air moves multiple times because of 1 drum hit,

the air moves multiple times because of the 2nd drum hit too etc.

the multiple times the air moves, and the energy as which it moves, is related to the energy, and momentum, by which I hit the drum;


You can say there are two frequencies and two wavelengths;

I hit the drum once, and there is a frequency that the drum material reverberates and reverberates the air;

I hit the drum 4 times in a row; in a quantity of time; that is another frequency; a frequency of frequencies;

How are wavelengths associated?

I think I understand that the term 'wave' has nothing to do with photon/em radiation;

I am sure the data could be plotted in many other shapes and graphing styles, all of which would be improper to say the shape of the graphing, represented the shape/form of a quanta of reality.

Not exactly, unless you bring in characteristics of the table top or something. Wavelength is dependent on the speed of the wave as well as the frequency. You can't have one without the other.

If I hit a drum, there are different variable conditions in which the sound will travel through the air; sound being, the movement of the drum material, moving the air;

well yes, I guess there is some up and down action, as the drum surface is moving up and down, colliding with the air, which then moves the air up and down; but anyway;

I hit the drum once, and the drum material reverberates multiple times, moving the air multiple times; and so I do not hear a planck second long noise from a drum hit, but potential a second or more long noise from one drum hit;

So wave length in this case, would be related to the reverberations of the drum material, /air

So wave length, part of the variable is the material of the drum surface, the taughtness of it, the area of it, the material of the stick I hit it with, the angle I hit it with, the energy I hit it with, the amount of time it contacts the surface etc.

all said and done, the hit is made, the surface is shaking, the air is shook, now, wavelength would be, the space by which it takes the drum surface to go up and down/air to go up and down due to that


So if I throw 5 baseballs at the wall, the wave length would be the average space between the balls; the frequency would be the average energy between the balls; no thing going up and down, wave, up and down, just a graph plotting;

originally posted by: Bedlam


My comprehension seems to match experimental data.

So did the flat earthers and cupernicus,

And it seems to disturb you that a photon can be created from another particle's energy state change. Although I'm still not sure why.

Things that are false and said to be true, often disturb me;

If there is photon material at all points in space, I have absolutely no problem with a photon being created from a particles energy state; a particles energy state is x, it is accelerated, its energy state is y, the result is propagated via the photon material field that exists at all points in space;

see my '2 charges collide in nothing example' to answer the other aspects.

What sorts of waves do you get in a bulk medium? That is, not at the surface. Let's take your fish. What sorts of waves can that water propagate? At a basic level. Are they transverse, or longitudinal?

Is it impossible for a medium to exist that behaves differently than water?

"When you say wavelength, what are you physically describing about the photon?" - me


The length of travel that constitutes one cycle of E or H field oscillation.

Stick your flat hand out like a handshake and move it left and right multiple times; Would you agree this will cause the air surrounding your hand, to react in different ways, on one side of your hand, on the other side of your hand, in front of your hand, behind your hand, above your hand, below your hand (some may be in common, but the reactions are not all consistantly equal)?
Thats kind of all you mean by E and H field right; like below the hand is air field x reaction, to the side of the hand is air field y reaction, they make up the xy air field?

So... oscilation of that? There is only one susbtance which makes up the field; that which when a charge is accelerated, is detected and called 'em radiation', that substance must exist, prior to the charge accelerating;

If there was pure absolutely real nothing (and I bet you will respond wth saying, its done in the vacuum all the time, wahh, and say that a vacuum is not pure absolutely nothing when it suits your ignorance, but here you will forget that, and pretend that it is absolutely nothing, to prove your ill thunked point, well never really proving your point, just ignoring mine),

if there was pure nothing, a volume of real purely absolutely nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing, true, real pure nothing;

And 2 charge particles collided in this pure nothing volume; (nothing = no fields, no matter, no energy, no particles... nothing.. nothng.... 0 = 0.... )

colliding, = charge particle accelerated; in this beautifully valid thought experiment that you should listen to so you may deny your ignorance, we would expect to detect no EM radiation; because we believe, that EM radiation, is more than just charges; if there were only 2 charges, and nothing else, if they interact, we obviously, would suspect Em radiation to not be possible, 2 charges, collide... nothing to propagate, no e or h field... so no EM radiation;

Therefore! There must be SOMETHING real, besides 2 charges; (or the chrages must really lose something from their bodies) that when the charges collide and/or accelerate; their action is translated into that somethingness, which propagates away from the point of acceleration, and is termed EM radiation;

I rest my case God, I have known this for multiple years as you know, and as you also know I have been saying these same things to these same characters over and over again, and yes, we both know all about the scenario;

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Are frequency and wavelength terms to describe a single photon?

Yes!

Or groupings of photons?

Them, too.

I hit a drum at second 1

I hit a drum at second 1.1...

Change that to..I hit a bell at second 1 etc.

Now you've got two sorts of frequency. The bell has its own. Your tappings are another.

How are wavelengths associated?

I think I understand that the term 'wave' has nothing to do with photon/em radiation;

There are different sorts of waves, the transverse ones of propagating EM are just one sort.

all said and done, the hit is made, the surface is shaking, the air is shook, now, wavelength would be, the space by which it takes the drum surface to go up and down/air to go up and down due to that

That's more like amplitude than frequency.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I rest my case God, I have known this for multiple years as you know, and as you also know I have been saying these same things to these same characters over and over again, and yes, we both know all about the scenario;

If you put half as much effort into learning the topic instead of trying to brutalize English into something it was never intended to be good at, you'd probably be really good at this.

a reply to: Bedlam

If the microwave emitter was aimed toward out the door would that at least increase the chances of the microwaves passing through the 'screen print mesh holes'?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

If the microwave emitter was aimed toward out the door would that at least increase the chances of the microwaves passing through the 'screen print mesh holes'?

The signal's bouncing around like mad in there, so you are definitely getting 'aimed at the door' as part of the fun. But, no, I don't think you're going to see an increase. It just won't go through.

This is part of how you design enclosures for high power radio equipment. Or to pass FCC class B for a computer.

And, in a way, it's how polarizers work for light.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But, Joel wasn't talking about your own personal wave function, he was talking about the wave function of photons. In that case slits can be smaller but I wouldn't say they are like having no slit at all.

It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

If the photon acts like a particle and not a wave, does that make a difference as to the size of the slit? Why does the photon have "size" in the first place if it doesn't have mass (at least in this context)?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


No. There is no conservation law on photons.

I question every single aspect, of theory of fundamental physics. On the road to figuring out what is not understood and why;

You broken recordly relaying man declared axioms, when so much is not understood about the fundamentalality of these matters we are speaking of, does not progress sciences understanding.

There are problems with mankinds comprehension of the nature of reality, the physical existence and mechanics of realities substances.

Don't project your lack of comprehension onto other people.

It is possible part of the reason there are difficulities with the fundamental theories of physics is because people like you believe there is no conservation law on photons.

Perhaps, and, perhaps simians may spontaneously aviate from my posterior.

No wave of EM radiation, without preexisting material medium;

Thanks for furthering my point.

That the electromagnetic field existed for all time since the instant of the Big Bang? Yes, nobody disagrees. That's why its one of the fundamental fields of the Standard Model (which has it as the electroweak boson fields)

en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_formulation)

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But, Joel wasn't talking about your own personal wave function, he was talking about the wave function of photons. In that case slits can be smaller but I wouldn't say they are like having no slit at all.

It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

If the photon acts like a particle and not a wave, does that make a difference as to the size of the slit? Why does the photon have "size" in the first place if it doesn't have mass (at least in this context)?

Mass doesn't matter here.

Here's the physics. Impinge an electromagnetic wave upon a conducting flat sheet. What is really happening? The electrons in the conducting sheet are accelerated by the incoming EM wave, and themselves create new EM wave which happens to nearly perfectly cancel (except for an exponentially decaying part) what would have been the propagating EM wave going through the sheet. So on the backside of that conducting sheet you see no propagating waves.

Now, add a small slit. If the slit is substantially smaller than the wavelength, then even though there's some restriction in the movement of the electrons on account of the slit, what is still able to move generates a counteracting wave pretty effectively which blocks off most of the incoming wave.

If the slit becomes larger and larger then the ability to generate a counteracting wave is diminished more and more behind the hole, and more of the incoming wave can get through.

All of this is exactly calculable from Maxwell's equations and is a typical problem in an undergraduate electrodynamics class.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
It certainly is if the photons are big and mushy. If you have a radio wave, it won't go through an opening that the wave can't fit through. I'm pretty sure that light acts the same way.

Let's take radio wave example. The reason I'm arguing it's not like no slit at all, is I can look through the little openings in the front of my microwave oven to see how the cooking is progressing inside. If they were like no slits at all, then I wouldn't be able to see inside the microwave.

That's because the photons are smaller than the holes. You'll note, however, that the MICROWAVES can't fit through, thus your face doesn't become crispy.

Again, if the wave function of the photon is larger than the opening, the photon won't pass through.

I agree...and like we have technology to make a slit smaller than single quanta in any respect.

Double slit experiment to me personally seems significant only by conclusion and especially wave-particle duality conclusion. Conclusion currently resulted in duality paradigm. Wave-particle duality to me means that same quanta can have wave-like characteristics and by all means be looked at as a particle when caught on detector. Which is true to the extend.

Imagine same quanta of energy wave where photon is a 'sample' of that wave. Photon is a sample that can be studied with further analysis with only one purpose, to give me information about that single quanta (pulse) of energy so I can identify it.

Double slit experiment to me is a mystery. I simply do not understand the catch. Why duality conclusion was accepted as logical amd true from the outcome?

originally posted by: greenreflections

I agree...and like we have technology to make a slit smaller than single quanta in any respect.

Double slit experiment to me personally seems significant only by conclusion and especially wave-particle duality conclusion. Conclusion currently resulted in duality paradigm. Wave-particle duality to me means that same quanta can have wave-like characteristics and by all means be looked at as a particle when caught on detector. Which is true to the extend.

Imagine same quanta of energy wave where photon is a 'sample' of that wave. Photon is a sample that can be studied with further analysis with only one purpose, to give me information about that single quanta (pulse) of energy so I can identify it.

Double slit experiment to me is a mystery. I simply do not understand the catch. Why duality conclusion was accepted as logical amd true from the outcome?

The double slit experiment shows particle like behavior for single photons (or matter particles). You have discrete and localized events (photon hit here). But when looking at multiple events you see a diffraction pattern arise, they are not statistically independent. This is the mystery.

Also trying to assign a spatial size to a photon is kinda sketchy imho. There is no slit too small for a photon to pass through, the size only affects transmission probability, which is never zero.