Timeline for Light Particles-wave Energy Behaviour
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2018 at 19:43 | comment | added | Timothy Nwanwene | The question came from this imagination. If light particles interact, exchange energy, Then we could transmute data with light from the Sun's by bombarding it with light carrying data. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 6:02 | comment | added | Bill Alsept | @annav I’m saying we know something physically is happening and there is a physical explanation for it. A particle theory (as with real photons) can account for these misc phenomena without assigning reality to mathematics or reality to light waves. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 5:51 | comment | added | anna v | @BillAlsept because it is a probability wave, it is not the particle/energy that is waving in the double slit linked above. And probabilities are at the bottom of the validated model/theory of quantum mechanics and the metalevel of quantum field theory. Particles fit only the observation footprints, not the interaction cross sections. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 5:37 | comment | added | Bill Alsept | @annav I too am “turtles all the way down” With photons at the bottom and all particles being systems of smaller particles. I’m just not sure way a wave theory is needed when a particle theory can derive all the phenomena. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 5:36 | comment | added | anna v | "Sometimes they treat photons like they’re not real, and when they do you usually don’t disagree with them." real or not-real" are philosophical assignments and I do not want to get into a philosophical discussion, as this is a physics site. On the philosophy side, it might be true that the music of the spheres generates everything we see. I was amused when string theory came up as a candidate for a theory of everything , but at the moment physics experiments cannot solve philosophical discussions on the same data. | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 5:22 | comment | added | anna v | as a successful model in fitting laboratory data. They see it as the end all mathematical mold.It might be true, but having first met field theory in a mathematical model for nuclear physics ( creation and annihilation operators and all) I tend to see it as a very good tool for modeling nature, not nature itself, which for me still is "turtles all the way down". | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 5:19 | comment | added | anna v | @BillAlsept I am an experimentalist, a doubting Thomas. I look at the data, and model it. If I see cat paws in the cement, I say a cat passed here while the cement was wet. If I see dots in single photon experiment screens ( link above) I say a particle passed through here, call it a photon, because the experiment shows it builds up the final light interference pattern. People theoretically/mathematically inclined, tend to assign reality to the mathematics. The Platonic, Pythagorean point of view. Mathematics is the mold, nature fills it. It is a philosophical distinction. I see field theory | |
| Jan 8, 2018 at 1:23 | comment | added | Bill Alsept | Anna, you describe photons very real and physical just as I would but there are many people on this site including high-ranking ones who don’t consider photons physical at all. Sometimes they treat photons like they’re not real, and when they do you usually don’t disagree with them. I’m not saying photons are little solid balls. They are oscillating systems of their own and your oscillating frequency determines their energy. | |
| Jan 7, 2018 at 21:24 | comment | added | Timothy Nwanwene | "can they scatter" --@Anna V. You got me right. I was wondering if light collide why don't it diffuse like gas. Thanks. I should really go back to school. | |
| Jan 7, 2018 at 8:31 | vote | accept | Timothy Nwanwene | ||
| Jan 7, 2018 at 5:41 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |