| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| shando |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 18:48:59
I am not sure if this is the appropriate topic, but here goes ...
Thoughts about the photon.
A photon is a quantum of electro-magnetic energy (EM).
A photon is thought to be a disturbance in the light-carrying-medium (LCM).
Photons travel through the LCM at velocity c, the speed of light.
Photons are detected as waves (transverse waves?) in the LCM.
Photons are detected as particles (longitudinal waves in the LCM?).
The wave aspect of photons has a frequency, which is proportional to the energy of the photon.
Photons can be entangled in such a way that the determination of the state of one photon causes an instantaneous
assumption of a predictable state by the related photon, regardless of its location. This implies a connection (in another
dimension?) independent of 3D space.
Is there a maximum limitation on photonic intensity (an upper limit on the photons per centimeter squared) at the point
of emission?
Is there space between photons from the same source, far away from the source (the photonic intensity per cm^2
should decrease proportional to 1/4piR^2 where R is the distance from the source)?
If a photon encounters opaque (for its frequency) matter, it may be reflected, or it may be absorbed, in which case it's energy is converted to some other form.
As the photon proceeds through space there is some non-zero loss of energy, probably due to friction within the LCM.
This change in energy is manifest as a change (reduction) in the frequency of the EM wave aspect of the photon over
distance.
How far will a photon travel (until its EM frequency becomes zero?)? This must be the fate of almost all the photons, however generated, within the universe.
What happens to the energy contained in the photons that never encounter matter?
Answer: The energy of dead photons is obviously absorbed by the LCM. (Does the LCM consist of dead photons then?)
Is this the source of zero-point energy (ZPE)?
I am feeling a bit confused. Please label any of the above assertions true or false and feel free to respond to any of the questions.
Thanks
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| shando |
Posted - 23 Apr 2013 : 08:23:09
As I said above, "Rupert Sheldrake ... said that he had examined all the 'speed of light' determination experimental data and found that there was a decreasing trend in 'c' until the '70s and then it turned positive and was still increasing."
The thought occurred that maybe it isn't "c" that is changing, maybe it is "t" that is inconstant. |
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 16 Apr 2013 : 12:57:37
Pretty much like your red shift equation above.
You probably ought to use a name other than Hubble for the terms. And if it is different for each object then it is not really a constant.
"SV" for shando variable? ;-)
There are two basic processes to think about that might cause light to red shift: a slow steady loss while propagating through space, and a one time event at (or possibly very near) the originating object. So your equation will most likely only have two terms. Many theories tend to focus on one or the other. That just seems unlikely to me. At the very least it is premature.
LB |
| shando |
Posted - 15 Apr 2013 : 22:53:56
I wonder what a "drake equation" for red shift would look like? |
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 15 Apr 2013 : 19:08:21
The problem is that red shift DOES correspond to distance (and therefore indirectly to velocity) - some of the time.
(Tom and I did argue about a few things. I wish he were still here to defend his opinions.)
In fact, this is probably the case most of the time. Simple friction with the propagating medium (aether, LCM, space-time-continuum-suff, dark matter, etc. - take your pick) is a logical explanation but it is not guaranteed to be the right one. Even if light energy is not a 100% wave phenomenon, it has to have some part of it that is a wave in order to have so many wave properties. And that part will lose energy as it propagates through whatever medium it uses. And that energy loss will be observed as a red shift.
The real problem is getting people to realize that even though the observed red shift for a lot of objects is distance related, for some objects a part (maybe most) of the red shift comes from other causes.
***
Reality is seldom so simple that one thing can be said to be the (only) cause of another thing. The universe is not digital.
LB |
| shando |
Posted - 15 Apr 2013 : 08:52:51
Good to hear from you Larry!
I am beginning to wonder if the reason "we latched on to the velocity-of-recession idea" was the assumption that light speed "c" is a constant? Occam's razor would suggest that there MUST be a simpler explanation for the observed red-shift in light from intergalactic sources than an "expanding universe".
I recently viewed a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake at the Electric Universe Conference in Jan 2013. There are two parts to the presentation on UTUBE and I don't remember in which part he said that he had examined all the 'speed of light' determination experimental data and found that there was a decreasing trend in 'c' until the '70s and then it turned positive and was still increasing. (Such is the power of the 'constant c' paradigm that this has been 'fixed' by making the defined length of a meter to be the distance light travels over a specific time period.) If c were constant and the different values caused by systematic errors, they would have been randomly high and low, and not apt to have displayed trends.
Now that there appears to be evidence that c may not be constant over time and/or space, maybe we should think about a simpler approach to red shift theory. My thinking is going in the direction that there is no "Hubble Constant" - rather there may be a family of Hubble Constants.
That is, the Hubble Constants are comprised of several parts:
RS = H1 + H2 + H3 + H4
Where:
RS = observed Red Shift of a particular light source
H1 = a factor related to f(D), a function of the distance D travelled by the light wave/photons
H2 = a factor related to f(S), a function of the speed (+ or -) S of the light source with respect to the direction of propagation at the time of generation
H3 = a factor related to f(O), a function of the speed (+ or -) O of the observer with respect to the direction of the light wave at the time of observation
H4 = a factor related to f(X), a function of one or more unknown variables represented by X (eg: gravity at the source at the time of light generation) yet to be determined.
If this is true, the Hubble Constants will probably be unique for each light source observed.
Of course, this is not new. Arp suggested in Seeing Red, the redshift of matter is an inverse function of the age of that matter.
Still after 15 years, as tom said in his review of Seeing Red, "One wonders how many different ways nature must repeat this message about redshift not corresponding to distance before it sinks in with the astronomers."
|
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 12 Apr 2013 : 15:03:01
Sorry for my recent absense. I've been distracted.
[Jim] " ...so don't make dumb connections ..."
Jim, this clearly qualfies as a personal attack. In the grand scheme of things it is more like a middle finger flash than a shove or a slap in the face, but it is still not appropriate here. Please cut it out.
Shando - thank you for being the adult here and not taking offense.
***
In nature, all waves are observed to lose energy as they propagate through their medium. One of the terms we use to describe this phenomenon is 'red shift'.
(see also 'blue shift')
In those cases where we can actually observe the partcles comprising the medium (sound waves in the atmosphere, for example) we are able to see that one of the energy loss mechanisms causing red shift is friction among the particles. Another loss mechanism is a relative velocity between the observer and the propagating medium. There can be others.
Red shift is one of those wave-properties that light seems to have. But so far we are not able to detect the particles that must be there (if light actually is a wave phenomenon). Because of this, and other historical reasons, we latched on to the velocity-of-recession idea a while back and have never seriously considered other loss mechanisms to explain the observed frequency/distance relationship.
In general, any energy loss mechanism that is proportional to distance traveled by a wave will cause a frequency reduction (red shift) in that wave like the one observed for the light from distant galaxes.
Friction is one.
Scattering from intergalactic dust and atoms is another, but it is disqualified in this case since it also predicts that blurring would happen and said blurring is not observed.
LB |
| Jim |
Posted - 26 Mar 2013 : 22:30:43
Shando, A watt per second is a joule-right? The solar flux of one watt per 5,000kg is a constant unrelated to time. |
| shando |
Posted - 26 Mar 2013 : 20:44:58
>> the sun radiates about one watt per five thousand kilograms
This is news to me (my ignorance). Is that 1 watt per second?
>> All you need to do is use what is well known to determine how many photons are equal to one watt-right?
If the first fact is true, and we knew the total mass of the sun and how many photons in total are given off per second by the sun, we could probably develop a reasonably good estimate of the rate of photon production. |
| Jim |
Posted - 22 Mar 2013 : 18:48:16
Shando, I'm sure you will agree the sun radiates about one watt per five thousand kilograms and you can do a lot with that fact. All you need to do is use what is well known to determine how many photons are equal to one watt-right? |
| shando |
Posted - 22 Mar 2013 : 00:34:48
Yes, I certainly agree that a huge number of photons flow from stars - as to the quantity, I have no idea. And I have no idea how to measure the amount of flux. |
| Jim |
Posted - 20 Mar 2013 : 13:19:49
Shando, I'm sure you will at least agree a lot of photons flow from the sun and all stars. I get a count somewhere around 10^45/s. What do you estimate the count to be? Just to be clear you can divide the mass estimate of the energy flux and get a good idea about the mass of one photon-right? |
| shando |
Posted - 17 Mar 2013 : 15:47:09
>> Shando, You need to see recycling as a different process than salmon returning to the place of their birth.
Good, because what you said made me think that "salmon returning to the place of their birth" is what you meant. Please explain further.
>> Clearly photons move in one direction and never return ...
Up above you said: "If photons come from somewhere why can't they return there". I didn't notice that you had changed from "return" to "recycle". So now you are saying that photons 'recycle' [I don't understand what that means] without a 'return' to the source?
>> ... so don't make dumb connections with things having nothing in common with recycling.
Strike 1: if you refer to my comments as 'dumb' then there is probably no point in continuing this dialogue. I made what I consider to be a reasonable inference from your comments - if they are 'dumb' maybe you didn't communicate your meaning all that well.
>> You agree the photon in(sic) emitted from an atom so we have as a given now-right?
Yes.
>> They have energy and energy is equal to mass-right?
Yes, but not at the same time. If energy, then not-mass. If mass, then not-energy. They seem to be all energy, with no measurable mass. Yet they react to gravity.
>> So, lets use the mass radiated from a star and attempt to explain how that mass can be accounted for.
>> The current belief is helium has less mass than four protons.
I am not aware of this.
>> Have you even done the math to determine if that adds up?
NO, have you?
>> IMO, we don't have a clue as to how to account for the emitted mass from a star.
Really?
>> At the same time we don't have a clue as to how photons transform to protons.
I have never heard of this happening.
>> But, photons flow from atoms and transform into protons.
Do you have any evidence that this happens?
>> This simple fact may never be discovered by our science given internal shortcomings that have developed over the years.
Ah! That is why I haven't heard about this remarkable transformation.
IMO, belief without evidence = religion. No?
|
| Jim |
Posted - 16 Mar 2013 : 21:58:26
Shando, You need to see recycling as a different process than salmon returning to the place of their birth. Clearly photons move in one direction and never return so don't make dumb connections with things having nothing in common with recycling. You agree the photon in emitted from an atom so we have as a given now-right? They have energy and energy is equal to mass-right? So, lets use the mass radiated from a star and attempt to explain how that mass can be accounted for. The current belief is helium has less mass than four protons. Have you even done the math to determine if that adds up? IMO, we don't have a clue as to how to account for the emitted mass from a star. At the same time we don't have a clue as to how photons transform to protons. But, photons flow from atoms and transform into protons.This simple fact may never be discovered by our science given internal shortcomings that have developed over the years. |
| shando |
Posted - 16 Mar 2013 : 15:03:19
>> I'm sure you will agree photons come from stars and digging a bit deeper they are emitted by atoms.
I agree that this is the preferred theory.
>> This process is really not very well understood ...
Agreed
>> Anyway, it is quite clear to me photons need a way to return to atoms sometime after they are born.
It is not at all clear to me why this might be so. Please enlighten me.
>> And since there is nothing in our current state of art even attempting to understand how a photon is produced why would [you] suppose I might know how these things work?
Hmmm ... yet "it is clear to" you "that photons need a way to return to" their source, like salmon to the river of their hatching.
>> All I can say for sure is IMO this is true.
OK, I cannot argue with that.
>> You want to say this is false and I am asking you why?
I am not saying that this is false - I just don't see any evidence that suggests this happens.
If it did then, when driving a car at night, wouldn't the driver would be blinded by the photons returning toward the headlights? |
| Jim |
Posted - 15 Mar 2013 : 21:15:56
Hi Shando, They don't return; they recycle. I'm sure you will agree photons come from stars and digging a bit deeper they are emitted by atoms. This process is really not very well understood and you might also agree with that. Anyway, it is quite clear to me photons need a way to return to atoms sometime after they are born. And since there is nothing in our current state of art even attempting to understand how a photon is produced why would suppose I might know how these things work? All I can say for sure is IMO this is true. You want to say this is false and I am asking you why? |
| shando |
Posted - 15 Mar 2013 : 16:18:27
>> IMO, photons recycle and your concern about a glowing sky is unfounded in fact.
Interesting opinion. My evidence is that the sky is not glowing 24/7.
I infer that you are suggesting that the sky is not glowing because photons return to their source.
I am wondering what you think the cause and/or mechanism making that happen, is. |
| Jim |
Posted - 15 Mar 2013 : 12:51:16
Shando, Why can't photons simply recycle rather than do as you believe? If photons come from somewhere why can't they return there? IMO, photons recycle and your concern about a glowing sky is unfounded in fact. |
| shando |
Posted - 14 Mar 2013 : 22:10:33
Hi Jim.
You said:
>> What compels you to believe a photon looses energy?
If it didn't the sky would be aglow 24/7 due to the photons continuing to circulate throughout the universe, their paths deflected by gravity from large masses, forever.
We don't see this happening, so I conclude that EM radiation does NOT go on forever.
Since the photons (or wave trains) are compelled to travel at 'c' the frequency for the wave train must drop to zero. Since energy cannot be created or annihilated, it must still exist, absorbed into the LCM, probably raising the 'temperature' of the LCM to that which is observed for 'empty' space.
Hope I answered your question.
|
| Jim |
Posted - 14 Mar 2013 : 19:24:01
Shando, What compels you to believe a photon looses energy? IMO, this never happens so I wonder if you can explain why you say they do loose energy? |
| shando |
Posted - 14 Mar 2013 : 05:03:47
I am sleepless in Hawaii - again - because it has been a year and Larry still has not addressed the following:
Evidence: LCM is entrained by large bodies such as planets. If the viscosity were zero there would be no entrainment.
Evidence: The energy of photons decreases in proportion to distance travelled. Although the velocity of the photon is maintained, the frequency of the photon is decreased as energy is shed due to the viscosity of the LCM. In other words, the red-shift is caused by distance travelled through the LCM, not because of universe expansion.
Evidence: Thus at some point (after travelling some billions of light years) the energy of the photon is exhausted, absorbed by the LCM. Otherwise, the sky would be aglow 24/7 due to the photons continuing to circulate throughout the universe, their paths deflected by gravity from large masses, forever.
Speculation: the zero-point-energy of "empty space" may be due to the accumulated energy from the exhausted photons.
|
|
|
