Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Do individual photons actually move?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 7:46:29 PM10/4/11
to
It seems photons as we perceive and/or detect them are terribly slow
(taking 13+ billion years just to get from some of the furthest
detectable galaxies), and yet I still can't seem to find any objective
proof that individual photons actually move.

Perhaps what we need is a parallel or even tangent photon detector as
a quantum or string theory camera that scans and unloads its pixel
buckets at c. Recording a suitable photon wave from the side, top or
bottom should technically be doable if in fact individual photons as
waves of energy or EMF actually propagate rather than line-dance or
transponder relay.

Perhaps a 300 meter CCD or other detector could be configured as the
full-wave linier photon imager that could capture a 1e-6 sec
exposure. In theory a 3 meter detector should record 1% of a full-
wave photon, that is unless photon waves do not actually individually
propagate away from their source.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Salmon Egg

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:23:15 AM10/5/11
to
In article
<1f8fcb65-2774-4da6...@k10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / ³Guth Usenet²

You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.

What we see is evidence of moving photons by their interactions. We do
not observe photons directly. For example, the track of an x-ray photon
in a cloud chamber is a series of droplets. Each droplet is formed
around an ion that typically gets formed by Compton scattering with
attenuated photons continuing along the "path." Doing the quantum
calculation correctly will show that the probability of an ion forming
is greatest along what appears to be the pat.

A similar process for electrons scattered by a potential distribution is
called the Born effect. It is as if the electron gets scattered with a
collision with a particle.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

HVAC

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:43:46 AM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/2011 6:23 AM, Salmon Egg wrote:
>
>
> You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.
>
> What we see is evidence of moving photons by their interactions. We do
> not observe photons directly. For example, the track of an x-ray photon
> in a cloud chamber is a series of droplets. Each droplet is formed
> around an ion that typically gets formed by Compton scattering with
> attenuated photons continuing along the "path." Doing the quantum
> calculation correctly will show that the probability of an ion forming
> is greatest along what appears to be the pat.
>
> A similar process for electrons scattered by a potential distribution is
> called the Born effect. It is as if the electron gets scattered with a
> collision with a particle.

I wish to make a scientific prediction here.

I predict that Gus will respond in an alarmingly kooky manner.





--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 7:39:26 AM10/5/11
to
-----------------
you can never detect
a single photon
it is too tiny
2
see the Helix model for photon
movement

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------

DougC

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 7:55:42 AM10/5/11
to
Brad Guth wrote:

> and yet I still can't seem to find any objective
> proof that individual photons actually move.

The life span of a photon is 0 (zero) at the speed of light. From
that galaxy 13+ billion light years away until it hits your eyeball,
time did not pass to the hapless photon. It just did a lot of
moving.

Doug Chandler

PD

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:17:32 AM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/2011 6:39 AM, Y.Porat wrote:

>
> -----------------
> you can never detect
> a single photon
> it is too tiny

Google "single photon detectors".

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:19:54 AM10/5/11
to

Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
-----------------
>you can never detect
a single photon
it is too tiny

Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg

The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
S*


Hägar

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:32:03 AM10/5/11
to

"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j6hcch$a6e$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> On 10/5/2011 6:23 AM, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>
>>
>> You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.
>>
>> What we see is evidence of moving photons by their interactions. We do
>> not observe photons directly. For example, the track of an x-ray photon
>> in a cloud chamber is a series of droplets. Each droplet is formed
>> around an ion that typically gets formed by Compton scattering with
>> attenuated photons continuing along the "path." Doing the quantum
>> calculation correctly will show that the probability of an ion forming
>> is greatest along what appears to be the pat.
>>
>> A similar process for electrons scattered by a potential distribution is
>> called the Born effect. It is as if the electron gets scattered with a
>> collision with a particle.
>
> I wish to make a scientific prediction here.
>
> I predict that Gus will respond in an alarmingly kooky manner.
>


... deafening silence from the GuthBall ... it appears the kooks
out-bullshitted him ...


David Staup

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:57:29 AM10/5/11
to

>>
>
>
> ... deafening silence from the GuthBall ...


predictable!



Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 12:38:05 PM10/5/11
to
-------------------
MR PD
just noe we heared in the news
that another (bloody) Israeli prof.

Dan Shechtman
got the chemistry Nobel ( just himself withjout partners )!!!
and a heared a long inteviw with him
he said that discovered his discovery
about ten years ago
yet
all the scitific ESTABLISHMENT 'COMMUNITY'
was against him
even not sparing insults towards him!!
and now comes the main punch point that i woulf like to tell you :

he said that even current science
IS TOO MUCH A SORT OF RELIGION !!!
it is unbelievable how much
the 'establishment' is locked on concepts !!!
and i add on it

is is difficult to move the 'establishment 'from its wrong paradigms
and believes
as it is difficult to move
the floating airplanes carrier war ships with their thousands
human staff
(i forgot hoe they are called called in English )
so
dont look for quotes about phootn detectors
it is not single photons
it is a huge bunch of single photons
and dont forget who showed it to you
by

E single photon energy = hf times n
while
0 < n <<< 1.ooo
i showed it by a stunning simple
experiment
of a Led torch light and a photoelectric cell
remember ??

it is an experiment that you cant deny !!
unless you are
''religious''

later i used that n to be
the Plank Time scalar part of

that is if you dont mind
history of science
done by an m anonymous outsider

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------




alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 12:40:13 PM10/5/11
to
Unless you think radio waves are fundamentally different from light
waves, try thinking much larger wavelength; transmit a photon from a
radio transmitter's antenna to an antenna connected to a receiver. You
want to know "What photon? How do you know there was a photon
traveling between transmitter and receiver? Why can't we watch it in
go by?"

We can place another antenna/receiver in the propagation path.
Trouble is, detecting a photon stops it. It won't get to the original
receiver because the new one stopped it.

We can also put a laser in between, so that the original photon
stimulates many more, enough to satisfy both receivers.

But in that case, we've still stopped the original photon; what both
receivers detect are its clones.

AFAIK the closest real-world example of what you describe is called
a "passive transponder" that amounts to a receiving antenna connected
to a transmitting antenna (often through a filter). An incoming photon
stimulates currents and fields in the antenna and filter which induce
currents and fields in the transmitting antenna, becoming a free
photon after a little delay.

It's arguable that the currents and fields induced in the
transponder *are* the original photon, but you can't know that the
transponder just handled a photon without using up some of the
photon's energy. But then, it will have less energy than the original
photon and won't make it through the filter because its frequency is
too low, and ignoring the filter, it won't match the transmitting
antenna's impedance because is wavelength is too large. It will
reflect back and forth along the connection between the antennas and
eventually be lost as heat.

"Parallel" or "tangent" detection simply isn't possible. Detecting a
photon by definition stops it cold by converting its energy to some
other form. What you propose is to extract information from the photon
about its position without using any of its energy. Unless you know of
some way to break conservation of energy, it can't be done.


Mark L. Fergerson

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 12:52:35 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 3:23 am, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1f8fcb65-2774-4da6-8576-41e4273b3...@k10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Interesting, but not actual objective proof that an individual photon
wave moves or propagates as a quantum string like particle through
space. Obviously these photons are created and we manage to detect
that moment of creation plus their interactions with other matter
which only seems to suggest individual photon movement instead of some
quantum string of chain reactions.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 12:56:31 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 8:19 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> ----------------->you can never detect
>
> a single photon
> it is too tiny
>
> Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
> The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
> S*

OK, but did each individual photon vibration actually move through
space rather than being a stationary chain or link of quantum string
reactions?

David Staup

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:19:29 PM10/5/11
to


OK, but did each individual photon vibration actually move through
space rather than being a stationary chain or link of quantum string
reactions?


Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like
properties. Their dual wave-particle nature can be difficult to visualize.
And cannot be shown (verified) simultaneously.


Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:05:52 PM10/5/11
to
Your interpretation is noted, as mainstream status-quo.

If the original photon has a life of only 0 (zero), then how can it
individually move through space?

If an individual photon actually moves, then it should be detectable
as such, especially when a dense medium causes that photon to slow way
the hell down.

What happens to the laws of physics if it turns out that individual
photons do not actually move.

Painius

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:21:49 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:43:46 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/5/2011 6:23 AM, Salmon Egg wrote:
>>
>>
>> You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.
>>
>> What we see is evidence of moving photons by their interactions. We do
>> not observe photons directly. For example, the track of an x-ray photon
>> in a cloud chamber is a series of droplets. Each droplet is formed
>> around an ion that typically gets formed by Compton scattering with
>> attenuated photons continuing along the "path." Doing the quantum
>> calculation correctly will show that the probability of an ion forming
>> is greatest along what appears to be the pat.
>>
>> A similar process for electrons scattered by a potential distribution is
>> called the Born effect. It is as if the electron gets scattered with a
>> collision with a particle.
>
>I wish to make a scientific prediction here.
>
>I predict that Gus will respond in an alarmingly kooky manner.

You already have.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Painius

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:25:40 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:19:54 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl>
wrote:
So where are the photons in that picture? I didn't see any photons,
not even the ones that impinged upon my retinae.

Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:26:17 PM10/5/11
to
Photons from distant stars, their paths were shown to be bent
by the sun's gravitation close to a century ago.

Red Acer

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:27:09 PM10/5/11
to
On 05/10/11 00:46, Brad Guth wrote:
> It seems photons as we perceive and/or detect them are terribly slow
> (taking 13+ billion years just to get from some of the furthest
> detectable galaxies), and yet I still can't seem to find any objective
> proof that individual photons actually move.

You seem to have provided a reasonable definition of 'move' right there?
You produce something 'here' and detect it 'there' some time later ( how
it got there might be complicated). So it moved from here to there. If
that is not satisfactory you need to give your definition of move before
we can answer the question.

Painius

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 1:28:18 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:55:42 -0700 (PDT), DougC <prig...@aol.com>
wrote:
And it did a lot of moving through a whole lotta crap!

er, uhm, SPACE-TIME -- through a whole lotta SPACE-TIME.

JohnF

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 2:43:56 PM10/5/11
to
In sci.physics Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I still can't seem to find any objective
>> proof that individual photons actually move.
>
> You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.

Which is, roughly, that light propagates as a wave
and interacts (with matter) discretely, so any "moving"
is done as a wave. And the electromagnetic field indeed
carries momentum E/c that characterizes your so-called
"moving".
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j...@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 2:55:32 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 11:43 am, JohnF <j...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
> In sci.physics Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I still can't seem to find any objective
> >> proof that individual photons actually move.
>
> > You have yet to fully embrace the feeling or gestalt of quantum theory.
>
> Which is, roughly, that light propagates as a wave
> and interacts (with matter) discretely, so any "moving"
> is done as a wave. And the electromagnetic field indeed
> carries momentum E/c that characterizes your so-called
> "moving".
> --
> John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j...@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

Then the tangent or parallel detections shouldn't be any problem.

Got any objective quantum science links pertaining to such tangent or
parallel detections of depicting any such individual photon wave
that's on the move?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 2:35:33 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 5:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> ----------------->you can never detect
>
> a single photon
> it is too tiny
>
> Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
> The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
> S*

----------------
please note
we are not talking about photons

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE REAL **SINGLE *individual smallest PHOTON
***
it seems that you are a new comer to that
our long discussion about it
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
---------------------------

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 3:08:33 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Photons from distant stars, their paths were shown to be bent
> by the sun's gravitation close to a century ago.

I'm not talking about those all-inclusive trillions upon trillions
upon trillions (1e36) of photons/cm3/sec, such as those which seem to
trek their way from Sirius.

This is about each individual photon. Can we objectively prove or
disprove that it actually moves, or not?

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 3:01:31 PM10/5/11
to
Don't be so sure about that. What happens to the laws of physics if
it turns out that individual photons do not actually move?

HVAC

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 4:16:49 PM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/2011 1:25 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.

Suggest you check the bathroom mirror.

Painius

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 4:32:14 PM10/5/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:16:49 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/5/2011 1:25 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>
>Suggest you check the bathroom mirror.

FINALLY, a freekin' CLOWN shows up, right, Big Nose Harlow?

jon car

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 3:49:22 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Photons from distant stars, their paths were shown to be bent
> by the sun's gravitation close to a century ago.

Sam?

What about the Moon's gravitation curving light path at Sobral eclipse
nine minutes later?

Mitchell Raemsch

Painius

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 4:35:29 PM10/5/11
to
So are you suggesting some kind of energy transfer between and among
photons similar to that of electrons in a wire?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:15:32 PM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/11 2:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> I'm not talking about those all-inclusive trillions upon trillions
> upon trillions (1e36) of photons/cm3/sec, such as those which seem to
> trek their way from Sirius.
>
> This is about each individual photon. Can we objectively prove or
> disprove that it actually moves, or not?


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

"A low intensity double-slit experiment was first performed by Taylor in
1909, by reducing the level of incident light until on average only one
photon was being transmitted at a time. The appearance of interference
built up from individual photons could be explained by understanding
that a single photon has its own wavefront that passes through both
slits, and that the single photon will show up on the detector screen
according to the net probability values resulting from the co-incidence
of the two probability waves coming by way of the two slits. Note that
it is the probabilities of photons appearing at various points along the
detection screen that add or cancel. So, if there is a cancellation of
waves at some point, that does not mean that a photon disappears; it
only means that the probability of a photon's appearing at that point
will decrease, and the probability that it will appear somewhere else
increases".

HVAC

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:25:49 PM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/2011 4:32 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:16:49 -0400, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2011 1:25 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>>
>> Suggest you check the bathroom mirror.
>
> FINALLY, a freekin' CLOWN shows up, right, Big Nose Harlow?
>

Right, Peenus.

HVAC

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:37:36 PM10/5/11
to
On 10/5/2011 6:15 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>
>> This is about each individual photon. Can we objectively prove or
>> disprove that it actually moves, or not?
>
>
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>
> "A low intensity double-slit experiment was first performed by Taylor in
> 1909, by reducing the level of incident light until on average only one
> photon was being transmitted at a time. The appearance of interference
> built up from individual photons could be explained by understanding
> that a single photon has its own wavefront that passes through both
> slits, and that the single photon will show up on the detector screen
> according to the net probability values resulting from the co-incidence
> of the two probability waves coming by way of the two slits. Note that
> it is the probabilities of photons appearing at various points along the
> detection screen that add or cancel. So, if there is a cancellation of
> waves at some point, that does not mean that a photon disappears; it
> only means that the probability of a photon's appearing at that point
> will decrease, and the probability that it will appear somewhere else
> increases".

I was waiting to see who would present this clear proof
that photons do indeed move.

You win, Sam.

Unfortunately, the prize is 3 days and one night at
the fabulous House Of Guth!

GogoJF

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 7:24:43 PM10/5/11
to
I would be interested also.

Salmon Egg

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:05:16 PM10/5/11
to
In article
<c3c7c328-73cb-4a61...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting, but not actual objective proof that an individual photon
> wave moves or propagates as a quantum string like particle through
> space. Obviously these photons are created and we manage to detect
> that moment of creation plus their interactions with other matter
> which only seems to suggest individual photon movement instead of some
> quantum string of chain reactions.

Right! Now, if you really believe that what you said is all there is,
then you are getting closer to understanding the physics. The main thing
I have to add is the same is true of electrons. You really do not know
where a single electron is or was except by its interactions with other
things. That is, an electron is not that different from a photon.

Just Me

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:23:10 PM10/5/11
to
Y.Porat
View profile
More options Oct 5, 11:38 am


-------------------
MR PD
just noe we heared in the news
that another (bloody) Israeli prof.
Dan Shechtman
got the chemistry Nobel
--
The bloodier they get, the better they get.

Duck Sucker. ;-)

Shema Yisrael!!!
--
JM

FrediFizzx

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:49:22 PM10/5/11
to
[newsgroups trimmed]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:TN6dndKiavOZShHT...@mchsi.com...
See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract

"Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit
Interferometer"

"A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one
may not discuss the path or "trajectory" that a quantum particle takes,
because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and
vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to
operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum
particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a
double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by
performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according
to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of
planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the
propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit
interferometer."

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 10:49:00 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 1:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
Yes, though sort of suggesting that each individual photon wave or
quantum photon unit or perhaps photon string unit doesn't actually
move, but merely vibrates suitably in order to transfer the amplitude,
frequency and those infinite trajectories to other quantum string
units along the way.

I'm thinking the dark/clear matter or possibly anti-medium is acting
like a vast superfluid volume that is capable of FIFO transponder
relaying any number of photon packets as instructed.

jon car

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:14:17 PM10/5/11
to
How can we watch light move if it doesn't enter an eye?
All we can know is the direction it came from.
How would we even know we had the same wave?
Einstein knew measuring light speed was only statistical
measuring with huge amounts of waves nothing individual
particles or waves.

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:45:52 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 5:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> ----------------->you can never detect
>
> a single photon
> it is too tiny
>
> Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
> The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
> S*

-----------------
so???!!

is it individual single photons ??
not at all !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:50:20 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 7:19 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> OK, but did each individual photon vibration actually move through
> space rather than being a stationary chain or link of quantum string
> reactions?
>
> Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like
> properties. Their dual wave-particle nature can be difficult to visualize.
> And cannot be shown (verified) simultaneously.

-----------------
because the real single photon
has the mass (the only mass !!)
of about exp-90 Kilograms
again Kilograms the only Kilograms !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:56:44 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 7:25 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:19:54 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> >news:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >-----------------
> >>you can never detect
> >a single photon
> >it is too tiny
>
> >Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
> >The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> >The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
> >S*
>
> So where are the photons in that picture?  I didn't see any photons,
> not even the ones that impinged upon my retinae.
>
> Where are the clowns?  Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine
>  http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

------------------
E = hf
is detected and obviously detected
yet waht we are able to detect
IS A HUGE BUNDLE OF SINGLE PHOTONS!!
E=hf
is not the formula for energy of a single photon
the enerfy of the single photon is

E=min = hf TIMES n
while
0< n <<<<<< 1.0000000 !!

ATB ( and copyrighted)
Y.Porat
------------------------------

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 12:10:10 AM10/6/11
to
--------------
little incurable parrot!!

waht we see in the double slit experiment
IS NOT SINGLE PHOTONS
IT IS A HUGE BUNDLE OF SINGLE PHOTONS
and while a huge bundle
so of them spread a side !!
got it parrot
so nosingle photon is interfering withitself!
that is an idiotic understanding of basica
of physics !!
so no probability and no schmobability!!

'God does not play the dice !!!''
2
if so
the story of ''single ' photons acting on each other from distance
is another idiocy
(the Aspect probability experiments )
they are dealing with a huge bunch
of single phootns
so again
a huge bunch can spread a side to many directions
with a density becoming deluted with distance
thats all that is behind of those experiments

copyright Y.Porat
the notion and understanding that E=hf
is not energy of a single photon

is going to shutter down
a lot of ''MODERN weird (quantum) PHYSICS ' nonsense

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

jon car

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 12:43:57 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 8:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 5:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> > ----------------->you can never detect
>
> > a single photon
> > it is too tiny
>
> > Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.

Near field is the truth.
No. Only waves that collapse into an electron at absorption are
necessary.
How big are the EM waves at emmision?
They cannot appear all at once nonlocally. They must expand at
emmison.

Mitchell Raemsch

jon car

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 12:49:50 AM10/6/11
to
How are we going to disprove the photon?
Einstein questioned it later.
Only waves are needed to enter matter.
The 2 waves of EM? Giving them a particle is not
called for. And if so what wave should it
be in?

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:11:44 AM10/6/11
to

Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:4bc7a6a9-29d3-4291...@dm9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
--------------
>little incurable parrot!!

>waht we see in the double slit experiment
IS NOT SINGLE PHOTONS
IT IS A HUGE BUNDLE OF SINGLE PHOTONS
and while a huge bundle
so of them spread a side !!
got it parrot
so nosingle photon is interfering withitself!
that is an idiotic understanding of basica
of physics !!

There are many of physics.

The Hertz waves were thoroughly investigated. The result of all experiments
were the same as for light.

Bat the Hertz transmitter produced the SINGLE photons, not a bundle.
And there the single photon is interfering withitself.
S*


Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:16:41 AM10/6/11
to

Uzytkownik "jon car" <jon.c...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:0e477708-f330-4a6e...@j31g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Sam do not know that Eddington make a joke.
Everybody know that the Earth atmosphere bent the light. The Solar
atmosphere do the same. So the Eddington result is a joke.
S*



Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:52:41 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 9:11 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:4bc7a6a9-29d3-4291...@dm9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
--------------------
so you are another parot

i can suggest a simple experiment for you
but before anything:--

is is obvious enough to you that
the current formula for a single photon energy is

E=hf ??

if yes
is it obvious to you that f is **one second** defined and measured ???
and if so
if it will be measured during **less than** one second
the energy emitted will be less --than that in one second ??

(another gross explanation
if your car is exposed in sun for one second
will it be heated the same as if it was exposed say during one
hour ??
2
and if it will be exposed only 1/10 of a second
will it be the same as in one second ??)

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------


Painius

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 7:40:57 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:05:16 -0700, Salmon Egg
<Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>In article
><c3c7c328-73cb-4a61...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, but not actual objective proof that an individual photon
>> wave moves or propagates as a quantum string like particle through
>> space. Obviously these photons are created and we manage to detect
>> that moment of creation plus their interactions with other matter
>> which only seems to suggest individual photon movement instead of some
>> quantum string of chain reactions.
>
>Right! Now, if you really believe that what you said is all there is,
>then you are getting closer to understanding the physics. The main thing
>I have to add is the same is true of electrons. You really do not know
>where a single electron is or was except by its interactions with other
>things. That is, an electron is not that different from a photon.

Maybe electrons are actually millions of spinning photons condensed
into the electron cloud. (Thank you, Bert)

Painius

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 7:46:59 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:25:49 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/5/2011 4:32 PM, Painius wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:16:49 -0400, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/5/2011 1:25 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>>>
>>> Suggest you check the bathroom mirror.
>>
>> FINALLY, a freekin' CLOWN shows up, right, Big Nose Harlow?
>>
>
>Right, Peenus.

How new and creative of you, InnoVAC.

Painius

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 7:51:09 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
<y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 5, 7:25 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:19:54 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>> >news:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> >-----------------
>> >>you can never detect
>> >a single photon
>> >it is too tiny
>>
>> >Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
>> >The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>>
>> >The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
>> >S*
>>
>> So where are the photons in that picture?  I didn't see any photons,
>> not even the ones that impinged upon my retinae.
>>
>> Where are the clowns?  Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>
>------------------
>E = hf
>is detected and obviously detected
>yet waht we are able to detect
>IS A HUGE BUNDLE OF SINGLE PHOTONS!!
>E=hf
>is not the formula for energy of a single photon
>the enerfy of the single photon is
>
>E=min = hf TIMES n
>while
>0< n <<<<<< 1.0000000 !!
>
>ATB ( and copyrighted)
>Y.Porat
>------------------------------

Yes, well, we couldn't have seen a photon MOVE, anyway.

And that's the freekin' question, isn't it?

Painius

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:00:36 AM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 00:52:41 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
<y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:

> . . .

>E=hf . . .

Are you sure those UNITS match up? E in what? ergs?

The units of measure? Are they properly matched in that formula?

Painius

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:02:26 AM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:16:41 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl>
wrote:
You're joking.

Right?

Bob Masta

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:27:03 AM10/6/11
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Yes, though sort of suggesting that each individual photon wave or
>quantum photon unit or perhaps photon string unit doesn't actually
>move, but merely vibrates suitably in order to transfer the amplitude,
>frequency and those infinite trajectories to other quantum string
>units along the way.
>
>I'm thinking the dark/clear matter or possibly anti-medium is acting
>like a vast superfluid volume that is capable of FIFO transponder
>relaying any number of photon packets as instructed.

This sounds a lot like the old "ether" idea, where light
waves were presumed to travel through a medium. If we think
of this as analogous to water or sound waves, then the wave
can propagate without any net displacement of the particles
of the medium it passes through. Is that the kind of "not
actually moving" that you mean?

However, most people think that the ether theory was laid to
rest by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:06:51 AM10/6/11
to
------------------
yet i am not dure you are getting me
to 'scratch '

please tell us according to your understanding

how long does a single photon has to be active
in order of being defined as
''a single photon'

it is revolutionary important to understand it
thoroughly !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------------

HVAC

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:14:31 AM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/2011 7:46 AM, Painius wrote:
> O
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>>>>
>>>> Suggest you check the bathroom mirror.
>>>
>>> FINALLY, a freekin' CLOWN shows up, right, Big Nose Harlow?
>>>
>>
>> Right, Peenus.
>
> How new and creative of you, InnoVAC.

Thank you, Peenus.

HVAC

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:17:45 AM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/2011 8:27 AM, Bob Masta wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm thinking the dark/clear matter or possibly anti-medium is acting
>> like a vast superfluid volume that is capable of FIFO transponder
>> relaying any number of photon packets as instructed.
>
> This sounds a lot like the old "ether" idea, where light
> waves were presumed to travel through a medium. If we think
> of this as analogous to water or sound waves, then the wave
> can propagate without any net displacement of the particles
> of the medium it passes through. Is that the kind of "not
> actually moving" that you mean?
>
> However, most people think that the ether theory was laid to
> rest by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881.


We have a god-fearing group in here that firmly
clings to the notion of 'ether'.

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:12:30 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 2:00 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 00:52:41 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
>
> <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > . . .
> >E=hf . . .
>
> Are you sure those UNITS match up?  E in what? ergs?
>
> The units of measure?  Are they properly matched in that formula?
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine
>  http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

----------
if my above n is usut a figure (scalar)
it does not change the dimensions of
hf
(you bet that i was thinking about it
thoroughly (:-)
2
that is why later i presented
(substituted ) that n
by (only !!)
**the scalar part*** of Plank time
(extremely small !! )

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:30:38 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 5:27 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
Yes, as though some kind of ether or aether is utilized. I'm thinking
along the lines of dark/clear matter being that medium, and even
though three dimensional atoms coexist within this medium is only
creating interference like an ocean full of ice would impede the
headway of any ship.

Salmon Egg

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:44:14 AM10/6/11
to
In article <9f4foq...@mid.individual.net>,
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one
> may not discuss the path or "trajectory" that a quantum particle takes,
> because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and
> vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to
> operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum
> particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a
> double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by
> performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according
> to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of
> planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the
> propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit
> interferometer."

The Richard Feynman approach on the probability calculation is his "Sum
over all paths" method. It takes every possible path a photon(or
particle) can take and evaluates the probability AMPLITUDE contributed
by that path. The calculation is the use of classical concepts with a
quantum twist. Most of the probability amplitude is contributed by paths
clustered about the classical path. But that leaves considerable leeway
for large deviations from classical paths. What is calculated is not the
path but the probability at the end of the path.

Bottom line: I fully agree with the paragraph quoted above.

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 11:45:47 AM10/6/11
to

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f50a6afa-82c6-4f0d...@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
------------------>
>yet i am not dure you are getting me
to 'scratch '

>please tell us according to your understanding

>how long does a single photon has to be active
in order of being defined as
''a single photon'

>it is revolutionary important to understand it
thoroughly !!!

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg

is the four photons each with the 7 vibrations. Such are made by the Hertz
transmitter.

Such photons were active between Europe and US.

People who are made the radios and radars understand it
thoroughly !!!
S*


Paul Cardinale

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 11:06:53 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems photons as we perceive and/or detect them are terribly slow
> (taking 13+ billion years just to get from some of the furthest
> detectable galaxies), and yet I still can't seem to find any objective
> proof that individual photons actually move.
>
> Perhaps what we need is a parallel or even tangent photon detector as
> a quantum or string theory camera that scans and unloads its pixel
> buckets at c.  Recording a suitable photon wave from the side, top or
> bottom should technically be doable if in fact individual photons as
> waves of energy or EMF actually propagate rather than line-dance or
> transponder relay.
>
> Perhaps a 300 meter CCD or other detector could be configured as the
> full-wave linier photon imager that could capture a 1e-6 sec
> exposure.  In theory a 3 meter detector should record 1% of a full-
> wave photon, that is unless photon waves do not actually individually
> propagate away from their source.
>
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Photons are quanta of light. Light moves (as can be demonstrated with
a flashlight). Therefore photons move.

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 11:58:43 AM10/6/11
to

"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:4e8d9c96...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, though sort of suggesting that each individual photon wave or
>>quantum photon unit or perhaps photon string unit doesn't actually
>>move, but merely vibrates suitably in order to transfer the amplitude,
>>frequency and those infinite trajectories to other quantum string
>>units along the way.
>>
>>I'm thinking the dark/clear matter or possibly anti-medium is acting
>>like a vast superfluid volume that is capable of FIFO transponder
>>relaying any number of photon packets as instructed.
>
> This sounds a lot like the old "ether" idea, where light
> waves were presumed to travel through a medium.

For Faraday and Tesla light waves were presumed to travel through a free
electrons like in metals.

> If we think
> of this as analogous to water or sound waves, then the wave
> can propagate without any net displacement of the particles
> of the medium it passes through.

You do not know that all waves are INHERENTLY asymmetric. There are always
the mass transport. It was discovered by Stokes.

> Is that the kind of "not
> actually moving" that you mean?

It is the oscillatory flow.
>
> However, most people think that the ether theory was laid to

> rest by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881.

May be that most. But they who read the Michelson original paper know that
the Lorentz ether theory was laid. It was the solid ether. The Stokes ether
was a winner.
The winner is like this: ""The field lines extending into the interplanetary
space remain rooted in
the Sun, and rotate with it. The radial outflow of the solar wind resembles
the outflow of water from a rotating sprinkler in the garden - the
trajectory of water drops is curved by the rotation of the sprinkler. From:
http://www.nmdb.eu/?q=node/135

So the Sun produces such ether.
Best regards,
S*


Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 12:43:15 PM10/6/11
to

"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f56r879ou3vt70sfg...@4ax.com...
Not at all: "The temperature (and pressure) gradient in the atmosphere
causes bending of light rays. This is called atmospheric refraction." From:
http://www.weatherscapes.com/album.php?cat=optics&subcat=flattening

The Sun's atmosphere has probably the both ("The temperature (and pressure)
gradient).
Do you agree?
S*


Steve Pope

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 12:57:08 PM10/6/11
to
Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>OK, but did each individual photon vibration actually move through
>space rather than being a stationary chain or link of quantum string
>reactions?

If a photon is emitted and then absorbed, from the POV of the photon
it is a force carrier transferring energy from the source system
to the destination system as an instantaneous event. (Regardless
of distance traveled or time elapsed as viewed by an observer.)
From the photon's perspective is has not moved through space,
nor did it exist for more than exactly one moment in time.

If a photon is emitted and not absorbed, some side effects can still be
observed. For example, when the Sun emits photos, even if they are
not absorbed, the Sun loses mass and this is observable gravitationally.

Steve

alien8er

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 1:10:16 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 12:01 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip to the crash)

> What happens to the laws of physics if
> it turns out that individual photons do not actually move?

I consider "actual" to mean "what is measurable". The word "moving"
I take to mean "changing position over time". For photons to not
"actually" "move", one or both of those meanings must change. Which do
you suggest? That choice, and the altered meaning(s), will constrain
the possible consequences for physics.


Mark L. Fergerson

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 1:57:19 PM10/6/11
to
We need something a bit more objective, as to what exactly is moving
and its shape or form as it moves through various mediums

Are you suggesting that current physics and our best science simply
can not accomplish this?

We seem to realize and accept that a photon can survive for at least
13.7 billion years if not indefinitely. So, How many all-inclusive
photons do you think our 13.7 billion year old universe has to offer?

Since our universe is supposedly at least 99.9999999999% empty means
that at least 99.9999999999% of all original plus any number of
secondary/recoil generations of photons are still out there.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 2:11:03 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 9:57 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
Yes, the solar wind represents an ongoing loss of mass which may or
may not have anything to do with photons. Sirius(B) is likely gaining
mass, and as such offers very little if any solar wind, yet it is
supposedly emitting or creating those UV and X-ray photons.

Most BHs are mass gaining and represent a rather tremendous source of
potential core of singularity energy or possibly antimatter, and as
such give off few if any photons. I think we need better physics and
new science for this one.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 2:20:53 PM10/6/11
to
Perhaps from the side or tangent view of a passing single photon is
merely a 2D flat disk or wavy line of zero z, whereas only the xy can
ever be detected.

Is there any sort of 2D science that we can apply? (or does everything
require that 3rd dimension)

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 2:32:47 PM10/6/11
to
I'm certainly not the head wizard on this one, but I do believe if
individual photons do not measurably propagate or change positions by
themselves, then perhaps the laws of physics and our best available
science is in need of some further adjustments.

This seems like another good 5th grade science project, because
obviously most of us adults don't seem to have a clue what any
individual photon that's sort of speak on the fly looks like.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 2:38:56 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 6:05 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c3c7c328-73cb-4a61-89c6-af59b9dcb...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>  Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting, but not actual objective proof that an individual photon
> > wave moves or propagates as a quantum string like particle through
> > space.  Obviously these photons are created and we manage to detect
> > that moment of creation plus their interactions with other matter
> > which only seems to suggest individual photon movement instead of some
> > quantum string of chain reactions.
>
> Right! Now, if you really believe that what you said is all there is,
> then you are getting closer to understanding the physics. The main thing
> I have to add is the same is true of electrons.  You really do not know
> where a single electron is or was except by its interactions with other
> things. That is, an electron is not that different from a photon.
>
> --
>
> Sam
>
> Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
> Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

I tend to favor that an electron is either a very tiny black hole or
it's a singularity that also can't be imaged regardless of the applied
physics or best available science, and perhaps photons are simply 2D
versions of the electron that seems to be 3D only because of its
supposed mass.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 2:48:13 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 8:50 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:19 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > OK, but did each individual photon vibration actually move through
> > space rather than being a stationary chain or link of quantum string
> > reactions?
>
> > Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like
> > properties. Their dual wave-particle nature can be difficult to visualize.
> > And cannot be shown (verified) simultaneously.
>
> -----------------
> because the real single photon
> has the mass (the only mass !!)
> of about   exp-90 Kilograms
> again Kilograms  the only Kilograms !!!
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------

Yes, the nonzero mass of the photon is nearly insignificant and
perhaps isn't going to be easy to directly visualize unless we can
master Planck resolution and Planck frame grab.

Perhaps way smaller pixels (individual atoms) that can be scanned at
1e-12 sec would help.

Paul Cardinale

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:02:24 PM10/6/11
to
Light is observed to move. That is absolutely objective.
Light is observed to be quantized. That is absolutely objective.
The quanta of light are called photons.
Anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that this is objective proof
that photons move.

As for the characteristics of photons, as far as we can tell they have
no size, no shape, no mass, and no charge.

Paul Cardinale

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:03:54 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 4:40 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:05:16 -0700, Salmon Egg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting, but not actual objective proof that an individual photon
> >> wave moves or propagates as a quantum string like particle through
> >> space.  Obviously these photons are created and we manage to detect
> >> that moment of creation plus their interactions with other matter
> >> which only seems to suggest individual photon movement instead of some
> >> quantum string of chain reactions.
>
> >Right! Now, if you really believe that what you said is all there is,
> >then you are getting closer to understanding the physics. The main thing
> >I have to add is the same is true of electrons.  You really do not know
> >where a single electron is or was except by its interactions with other
> >things. That is, an electron is not that different from a photon.
>
> Maybe electrons are actually millions of spinning photons condensed
> into the electron cloud.  (Thank you, Bert)
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine
>  http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Good one. After all, by now there's at least 1e100 photons per atom
in our universe as is, and lots more continually on the way.

Each average star contains how many photons that haven't gotten away?

Perhaps a black hole could be nothing but photons.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 3:59:45 PM10/6/11
to

Then you must have an objective tangent or parallel side-view of an
individual photon for us?

Remember, this inquest is not about any stream or flow of photons.

Can we transmit or otherwise release one individual photon and
subsequently record it from a tangent or side view?

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 4:06:15 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 9:43 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Painius" <starswir...@aol.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:f56r879ou3vt70sfg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:16:41 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Uzytkownik "jon car" <jon.car...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> >>news:0e477708-f330-4a6e...@j31g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Oct 5, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Photons from distant stars, their paths were shown to be bent
> >>> by the sun's gravitation close to a century ago.
>
> >>>Sam?
>
> >>>What about the Moon's gravitation curving light path at Sobral eclipse
> >>nine minutes later?
>
> >>Sam do not know that Eddington make a joke.
> >>Everybody know that the Earth atmosphere bent the light. The Solar
> >>atmosphere do the same. So the Eddington result is a joke.
> >>S*
>
> > You're joking.
>
> > Right?
>
> Not at all: "The temperature (and pressure) gradient in the atmosphere
> causes bending of light rays. This is called atmospheric refraction." From:http://www.weatherscapes.com/album.php?cat=optics&subcat=flattening
>
> The Sun's atmosphere  has probably the both ("The temperature (and pressure)
> gradient).
> Do you agree?
> S*

If Painius doesn't mind, I do believe the medium of any atmosphere (no
matters how slight) affects the velocity of light (call it PMR for
photon medium redshift). Gravity itself may or may not have any
significant affect, other than attracting and/or holding onto an
atmosphere.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 4:27:41 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/11 1:48 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Yes, the nonzero mass of the photon is nearly insignificant and
> perhaps isn't going to be easy to directly visualize unless we can
> master Planck resolution and Planck frame grab.

Nonsense!

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 4:28:50 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/11 1:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Most BHs are mass gaining and represent a rather tremendous source of
> potential core of singularity energy or possibly antimatter, and as
> such give off few if any photons. I think we need better physics and
> new science for this one.

Bullshit

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 6:24:16 PM10/6/11
to
Thanks ever so much, but since you got zip/nada/zilch objective proof,
we'll just have to keep this one on the burner and going full tilt
until one of you all-knowing wizards of our mainstream status-quo
forks over that tangent or side/parallel view of an individual flying
photon that supposedly moves from point(A) to any of 1e100 other
points in our universe at the velocity of c (ether/medium).

Do you have any swag as to how we'd objectively prove that each
individual photon moves and survives for billions of years?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:11:06 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/11 5:24 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

>
> Do you have any swag as to how we'd objectively prove that each
> individual photon moves and survives for billions of years?
>

Photon propagate till thy are absorbed, Brad.

From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.

1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)

Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ

Photon Energy
E = hν




Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:29:49 PM10/6/11
to
And yet you still have no objective proof of what each individual
photon is doing. Now that's either unadulterated faith or some kind
of wicked voodoo physics.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 8:42:18 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 3:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/11 2:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > I'm not talking about those all-inclusive trillions upon trillions
> > upon trillions (1e36) of photons/cm3/sec, such as those which seem to
> > trek their way from Sirius.
>
> > This is about each individual photon.  Can we objectively prove or
> > disprove that it actually moves, or not?
>
>    See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>
> "A low intensity double-slit experiment was first performed by Taylor in
> 1909, by reducing the level of incident light until on average only one
> photon was being transmitted at a time. The appearance of interference
> built up from individual photons could be explained by understanding
> that a single photon has its own wavefront that passes through both
> slits, and that the single photon will show up on the detector screen
> according to the net probability values resulting from the co-incidence
> of the two probability waves coming by way of the two slits. Note that
> it is the probabilities of photons appearing at various points along the
> detection screen that add or cancel. So, if there is a cancellation of
> waves at some point, that does not mean that a photon disappears; it
> only means that the probability of a photon's appearing at that point
> will decrease, and the probability that it will appear somewhere else
> increases".

Good parrot.

jon car

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:05:34 PM10/6/11
to
> Good parrot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Light's electric wave energy is spread out oscillating.
This allows for near field.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 12:00:12 AM10/7/11
to
Those oscillations are very close to one another, and as such should
be recorded as to its shape and volume.

From a tangent or side parallel view; what does that photon wave look
like?

Can a single 100 khz photon propagate as well as a CW of 100 khz?

Is the single original photon the exact same wave as the received
photon?

How can a transmitted low frequency wave such as 100 khz accelerate to
c and then drop down to 100 khz at the receiver?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 1:13:04 AM10/7/11
to
On 10/6/11 7:29 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 6, 5:11 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/11 5:24 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Do you have any swag as to how we'd objectively prove that each
>>> individual photon moves and survives for billions of years?
>>
>> Photon propagate till thy are absorbed, Brad.
>>
>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>>
>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>> 2. photons propagate at c
>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>>
>> Photon momentum
>> p = hν/c = h/λ
>>
>> Photon Energy
>> E = hν
>
> And yet you still have no objective proof of what each individual
> photon is doing. Now that's either unadulterated faith or some kind
> of wicked voodoo physics.
>

Just because you want photons to behave like Newtonian objects doesn't
concern me, Brad. Try some self-education.


Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 3:16:38 AM10/7/11
to

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:642d277b-3f36-474d...@m5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 10:57 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Photons are quanta of light. Light moves (as can be demonstrated with
> > a flashlight). Therefore photons move.
>
>> We need something a bit more objective, as to what exactly is moving
> and its shape or form as it moves through various mediums
>
>> Are you suggesting that current physics and our best science simply
> can not accomplish this?
>

>Light is observed to move. That is absolutely objective.
>Light is observed to be quantized. That is absolutely objective.

Yes. Natural light is not coherent. It is like the damped waves: :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg

>The quanta of light are called photons.

It is a nice name. It is from the tone - sound tone. Photon = light-tone.

>Anyone who isn't a blithering idiot knows that this is objective proof
that photons move.

All form of tone moves.

>As for the characteristics of photons, as far as we can tell they have
no size, no shape, no mass, and no charge.

They has the same parametters like the tones.
S*



Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 4:38:36 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 5:45 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:f50a6afa-82c6-4f0d...@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> ------------------>>yet i am not dure you are getting me
>
> to 'scratch '
>
> >please tell us according to your understanding
> >how long does a single photon has to be active
>
> in order of being defined as
> ''a single photon'
>
> >it is revolutionary important  to understand it
>
> thoroughly    !!!
> -----------------
i asked you a SIMPLE question
so please
answer
dont quote
tell us what ** you** understand in simple words
AND DON T OVER SMART !!

how long itneeds for a single
AGAIN A SINGLE 'got it ?? a single ""
phootn
inorder of being considered as a single BASIC
phootn
just a by litttle sub question :
you think that nature is so extravagant as to
CREATE ENDLESS BASIC SUBAPRTICLES
TO BE CONSIDERED SINGLE BASIC PHOTONS ??


> Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> is the four photons each with the 7 vibrations. Such are made by the Hertz
> transmitter.
>
> Such photons were active between Europe and US.
>
> People who are made the radios and radars understand it
> thoroughly    !!!
> S*

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 4:58:13 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 5:45 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:f50a6afa-82c6-4f0d...@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> ------------------>>yet i am not dure you are getting me
>
> to 'scratch '
>
> >please tell us according to your understanding
> >how long does a single photon has to be active
>
> in order of being defined as
> ''a single photon'
>
> >it is revolutionary important  to understand it
>
> thoroughly    !!!
>
> Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> is the four photons each with the 7 vibrations. Such are made by the Hertz
> transmitter.
>
> Such photons were active between Europe and US.
>
> People who are made the radios and radars understand it
> thoroughly    !!!
> S*

-------------------
That link is in French
so dont boggle our balls with that
and run away from simpe questions
tell us in your words
not waht others say or not say

HOW LONG DOES A SINGLE PHOTON HAS TO BE ACTIVE IN ORDER TO BE
CONSIDRED
A SINGLE BASIC PHOTON !!

and before we enter in quantitive details
just twell us your general understanding
about the world of mater and particles
do you think that nature is so exrtravagant
and unefficent in order to produce
ENDLESS BASIC PARTICLES THAT WILLBE
THE BASIC PHOTON PARTICLE?

ie the energy of it will be
hf times 1
hf times 2 hf times 3
hf times 4 etc etc endless nomners of single photons
SINGLE AGAIN SINGLE !!!


the U S is asingle country
Canada is a single country
Brazit is a single countery

does it mean that all of them
are some basic physical unit
2
one liter of water is a definite quantity
two liters of water are a definite quantity
all of them of the same substance

does it mean that
3 liters of water is a basic water unit
or basic unit of water ????

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------

mpc755

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 5:25:20 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 8:27 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, though sort of suggesting that each individual photon wave or
> >quantum photon unit or perhaps photon string unit doesn't actually
> >move, but merely vibrates suitably in order to transfer the amplitude,
> >frequency and those infinite trajectories to other quantum string
> >units along the way.
>
> >I'm thinking the dark/clear matter or possibly anti-medium is acting
> >like a vast superfluid volume that is capable of FIFO transponder
> >relaying any number of photon packets as instructed.
>
> This sounds a lot like the old "ether" idea, where light
> waves were presumed to travel through a medium.  If we think
> of this as analogous to water or sound waves, then the wave
> can propagate without any net displacement of the particles
> of the medium it passes through.  Is that the kind of "not
> actually moving" that you mean?
>
> However, most people think that the ether theory was laid to
> rest by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Masta
>
>               DAQARTA  v6.02
>    Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
>              www.daqarta.com
> Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
>     Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
>            Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
>           Science with your sound card!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The_experiment

"The original Michelson–Morley experiment was useful for testing the
Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."

The Lorentz ether has nothing to do with the aether of relativity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the ether.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:19:55 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 7, 9:16 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>  "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:642d277b-3f36-474d...@m5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
-----------------
your fucken skull has no mass!!

NO MASS - **THE ONLY MASS** - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
( the only mass means not relativistic
and not schmelativistic !!!

(the gamma factor does not apply to the photon case because while v=c
Gamma is undefined even stupid mathematically )

have you ever heard about it little parrot
if not its time that you will here it
at lease once
from me !!!
and dont forget from whom you heard it the first time !!!

keep well
Y.Porat
---------------------------------

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:23:42 AM10/7/11
to
You and others of your kind are the ones that can't objectively prove
that an individual photon wave actually moves along at c, other than
noting its frequency and amplitude motions.

Why does an individual photon bother to even go in any specified
direction if it has zero mass?

If this one photon encounters an atom, then why doesn't that photon
divert or terminate on the spot?

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:29:17 AM10/7/11
to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The...
>
> "The original Michelson–Morley experiment was useful for testing the
> Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."
>
> The Lorentz ether has nothing to do with the aether of relativity.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
> disregarding the causes which condition its state."
>
> The state of the ether at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the ether.
>
> 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
> Louis de BROGLIE'http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> "any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
> “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
>
> The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Sounds great, but then our individual photon wave need not move.

mpc755

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 11:03:37 AM10/7/11
to
You are getting into Einstein's definition of motion vs. mobility.

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."

Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.

The ether of general relativity is mobile.

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."

In terms of general relativity, the mobility of the aether is its
displacement by matter.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 11:08:34 AM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/11 9:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:13 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>> Photon propagate till thy are absorbed, Brad.
>>
>>>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>>
>>>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>>>> 2. photons propagate at c
>>>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>>
>>>> Photon momentum
>>>> p = hν/c = h/λ
>>
>>>> Photon Energy
>>>> E = hν
>>
>>> And yet you still have no objective proof of what each individual
>>> photon is doing. Now that's either unadulterated faith or some kind
>>> of wicked voodoo physics.
>>
>> Just because you want photons to behave like Newtonian objects doesn't
>> concern me, Brad. Try some self-education.
>
> You and others of your kind are the ones that can't objectively prove
> that an individual photon wave actually moves along at c, other than
> noting its frequency and amplitude motions.

Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

>
> Why does an individual photon bother to even go in any specified
> direction if it has zero mass?

All particles, including photons, follow a "straight line" in
curved space-time.

Y.Porat

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 11:28:58 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 7, 5:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/11 9:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:13 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>      Photon propagate till thy are absorbed, Brad.
>
> >>>>      From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>
> >>>>        1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> >>>>        2. photons propagate at c
> >>>>        3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> >>>>      Photon momentum
> >>>>        p = hν/c = h/λ
>
> >>>>      Photon Energy
> >>>>        E = hν
>
> >>> And yet you still have no objective proof of what each individual
> >>> photon is doing.  Now that's either unadulterated faith or some kind
> >>> of wicked voodoo physics.
>
> >>     Just because you want photons to behave like Newtonian objects doesn't
> >>     concern me, Brad. Try some self-education.
>
> > You and others of your kind are the ones that can't objectively prove
> > that an individual photon wave actually moves along at c, other than
> > noting its frequency and amplitude motions.
>
>    Physics FAQ: How is the speed of light measured?
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure...
>
>
>
> > Why does an individual photon bother to even go in any specified
> > direction if it has zero mass?
>
>    All particles, including photons, follow a "straight line" in
>    curved space-time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If this one photon encounters an atom, then why doesn't that photon
> > divert or terminate on the spot?
>
> >  http://translate.google.com/#
> >   Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

----------------
Curved space (:-)
if it is curved why they move in straight line ??

in any case
bullish

Y.P
------------------------


Y.P
---------------------

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 12:10:08 PM10/7/11
to

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:de156324-0c2f-4416...@f6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 5:45 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w
> wiadomoscinews:f50a6afa-82c6-4f0d...@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> ------------------>>yet i am not dure you are getting me
>
> to 'scratch '
>
> >please tell us according to your understanding
> >how long does a single photon has to be active
> in order of being defined as
> ''a single photon'

Each wave is "active" to infinity or is reflected back.
>
> >it is revolutionary important to understand it
>
> thoroughly !!!
> -----------------
>i asked you a SIMPLE question
>so please answer dont quote tell us what ** you** understand in simple
words
>AND DON T OVER SMART !!

>how long itneeds for a single
AGAIN A SINGLE 'got it ?? a single ""
phootn
inorder of being considered as a single BASIC
phootn
just a by litttle sub question :
you think that nature is so extravagant as to
CREATE ENDLESS BASIC SUBAPRTICLES
TO BE CONSIDERED SINGLE BASIC PHOTONS ??

My photons are waves. In waves are the ansymmetric oscillations of
particles. Atoms in the sound waves and the electrons in the light.


> Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>
> is the four photons each with the 7 vibrations. Such are made by the Hertz
> transmitter.
>

Szczepan Bialek

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 12:16:24 PM10/7/11
to

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f1e32c81-2a5a-41ad...@x19g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Photons are for students.
In optics, radio and radars are the wave packets.
I was a student a years ago.
S*


alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 1:25:54 PM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 11:32 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:10 am, alien8er <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 12:01 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip to the crash)
>
> > > What happens to the laws of physics if
> > > it turns out that individual photons do not actually move?
>
> >   I consider "actual" to mean "what is measurable". The word "moving"
> > I take to mean "changing position over time". For photons to not
> > "actually" "move", one or both of those meanings must change. Which do
> > you suggest? That choice, and the altered meaning(s), will constrain
> > the possible consequences for physics.
>
> >   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> I'm certainly not the head wizard on this one, but I do believe if
> individual photons do not measurably propagate or change positions by
> themselves, then perhaps the laws of physics and our best available
> science is in need of some further adjustments.

According to what we currently know how to measure, they do.

> This seems like another good 5th grade science project, because
> obviously most of us adults don't seem to have a clue what any
> individual photon that's sort of speak on the fly looks like.

We (verificationists) know what we can measure. That's pretty much
completely predictable (for EM) thanks to Maxwell et. al. starting us
on the road to Quantum Electrodynamics.

We can't model what an individual photon in flight "looks like" in
any sense other than predicting what we will detect if we stick some
hardware at a specific point in its path.

I'm not claiming QED is the Final Word. It isn't "reality"; it's a
*map* of reality. It's an amazingly accurate map, but it's still just
a map.

I see in another post you hypothesize about photons being handed off
between some "more fundamental" constituents of what sounds like an
Aether. What we call photons would then be mere emergent phenomena
associated with something on a level of detail our current map doesn't
represent.

But if all we can measure is the rate at which photons are handed
off, which corresponds one-to-one with the old-fangled speed of light,
what's the point? It's a "difference that makes no difference". You
don't want to watch a photon pass by, you want to watch individual
aetherons (whatever, just a name of convenience) change state as they
acquire and dispose of photons.

To detect the activity of aetherons requires qualifying and
quantifying *all* their properties, then figuring out how changes in
those properties might affect matter (instrumentation) at some
distance. This "actually" calls for a field theory like QED, only on a
finer scale. There are many so-called Quantum Aether Dynamics theories
out there but they aren't sufficiently predictive to be testable
(those that aren't outright crackpottery).

Can you suggest any specific properties of aetherons that would be
detectable at a distance, other than those involved in mediating
photons? If so, there ought to be a way to monitor them.

For starters, they shouldn't be able to decay. They can't have
"native" charge of any kind, as opposed to say electrons or quarks
which must hold certain kinds of charge. Spin maybe? Can aetherons
have spin, and how does it commute between them? Can aetherons be
entangled? Can we determine if aetheron A is handling a photon by
observing its entangled twin aetheron B at some distance?

Can they mutually interfere? Can they interfere with say neutrino
beams? Can we build a neutrino interferometer?


Mark L. Fergerson

Painius

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:26:55 PM10/7/11
to
Y. Porat, the basic unit of water is the H2O molecule, the basic unit
of a country like the US is the individual person, and the basic unit
of light is said to be the photon, which is just a bundle or quantum
of energy and also considered to be a fundamental particle.

Personally, I think that, while a fundamental understanding of the
photon is desirable, it is more important to study "photons", the
plural. My acceptance of this is based upon the sometimes very
different effects of a single basic unit, as opposed to the effects of
many of those basic units acting together. It's like the taste of one
sunflower seed as opposed to the taste of several sunflower seeds. The
taste of one is different from the taste of many.

Does one photon move? Yes, I accept that the answer is yes. It is
one of the many bits of knowledge that we have gained through science.
You have used phrases that indicate a disdain for mainstream science.
Yet all you have to offer are questionable mathematical formulae with
little other explanation. So what is YOUR understanding of light?
What is YOUR understanding of the waves and particles (photons) of
electromagnetic radiation? (Please do NOT resort to formulae and put
it in your very own words.)

mpc755

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:35:01 PM10/7/11
to
In a double slit experiment, the particle enters and exits a single
slit and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits both.

Painius

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:40:02 PM10/7/11
to
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 6, 4:51 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
>>
>> <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 5, 7:25 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:19:54 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Uzytkownik "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>> >> >news:b35abd3f-4e8d-47c8...@g23g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >-----------------
>> >> >>you can never detect
>> >> >a single photon
>> >> >it is too tiny
>>
>> >> >Photons are detected and measured in optics and in radio.
>> >> >The photon is a portion of vibrations in the damped waves:
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ondes_amorties.jpg
>>
>> >> >The Hertz transmitter produced photons with about 4 vibrations.
>> >> >S*
>>
>> >> So where are the photons in that picture? I didn't see any photons,
>> >> not even the ones that impinged upon my retinae.
>>
>> >> Where are the clowns? Bring in the freekin' clowns already.
>>
>> >------------------
>> >E = hf
>> >is detected  and obviously  detected
>> >yet waht we are able to detect
>> >IS A HUGE BUNDLE   OF SINGLE PHOTONS!!
>> >E=hf
>> >is not the  formula for energy of a single photon
>> >the enerfy of the single photon is
>>
>> >E=min = hf TIMES  n
>> >while
>> >0< n <<<<<< 1.0000000 !!
>>
>> >ATB ( and copyrighted)
>> >Y.Porat
>> >------------------------------
>>
>> Yes, well, we couldn't have seen a photon MOVE, anyway.
>>
>> And that's the freekin' question, isn't it?
>
>Perhaps from the side or tangent view of a passing single photon is
>merely a 2D flat disk or wavy line of zero z, whereas only the xy can
>ever be detected.
>
>Is there any sort of 2D science that we can apply? (or does everything
>require that 3rd dimension)

A correct and proper study requires 4 dimensions, nothing lower,
nothing higher. From the perspective of the photon, there is believed
to be no TIME dimension. It leaves Sirius and impinges on our retinae
in the same zero instant. However, we are not photons, you and I, so
from OUR perspectives it can be said that it DOES take time for a
photon to MOVE from Sirius (or wherever) to our eyes.

Remember, Brad, that I personally am not so sure that the photon
should be considered an "elementary particle", for each photon is just
a tiny bundle of energy. To me, a true energy particle is such that
it spends some time "on both sides of the tracks", so to speak. IOW,
an energy particle is, for a fraction of a second, a particle, then in
the next fraction of a second, a quantum of energy, then in the next
fraction of a second, a particle again, and so on. The photon, then,
is not a true energy "particle", for it never really takes on any
significant mass. I think it has just a tiny bit of mass, so that
thousands or millions of them spinning together have enough mass to
comprise an electron.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages