It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 114
80
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

No first photons aren't particles and they aren't waves those are just qualities of out photon. It is both it is neither.you want to put photons into a niche they are like nothing else. And at the same time like everything else since even matter can have waves.

Just because you dont know the way reality exactly exists;

Does not mean reality does not exist exactly in a way;

It is exactly more that;

Reality exists exactly in a way;

You dont know the way in which reality exactly exists;

We must use experiment and thought to best approach a comprehension of the way in which reality exists.

Anything that ever has existed and ever will exist is comparable to geometry.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:02 PM

Anything that ever has existed and ever will exist is comparable to geometry.

Geometry does not "exist." It, like all maths, is a human construct which can be used to represent that which does (and doesn't) exist.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:47 PM
Why does EM radiation diminish according to the inverse square law?

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:50 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Ok, well an area of space, with gravitons all connected, even if a single graviton is very small, a billion gravitons connected (as a section of gravity field) should be more detectable? Just like how a single atom is more difficult to detect than a billion atoms?

We can detect gravity? We just can't detect a single quanta of it. Don't think of it like atoms, think of it as light. Imagine if photons were that small, you would not be able to show light sometimes acted like particles, just a wave.
We detect gravitons by the accumulated effect which is gravity.
You can't detect a part of a gravity field if you can't detect the quanta it's made of. How would you be able to know it's boundaries? That makes no sense.

Baahhhh. The geometry of nothingness cannot effect a massive body. The geometry must be the geometry of something/substance/material. If you took all the matter and energy and fields and everything out of the universe, you wouldnt be able to create an shapes, or geometry. There is only nothing, and something. Yes, 'nothing' has a large role as in 'the potentially very intricate spatial distances in between quantas of something'; yes 'nothing' has a large role as in 'all massive systems of matter are not 100% dense', because, 'there exists spaces of nothing between the quantas of matter'.

So if you had a ring of atoms, would you say the space in between them is a geometric circle? Nothing cannot have qualities, other than being exact areas of distances in between somethings.

If there is a geometry version of gravity, the geometry is geometry of substance.

Where did you get the idea that space-time is nothing? It's not nothing, it's the collective of all the fields, potentialities, energy and such. The geometry idea fits really well. The basic idea is that light always takes the shortest path. It's always moving straight ahead so when it does seem to bend it's because the space-time that it's moving in is curved but the curved path is still the most direct route. Using that geometrical description fits perfectly.

Using vectors and tensors Einsteins geometry version predicted all of Newtons algebra plus made more detailed predictions.

Down at the Planck scale there must be areas of "nothing" but possibly only in the sense that there isn't any way to understand what those gaps in space-time consist of. A different underlying reality with different rules? Who knows?
Why is defining "nothing" even a thing here? It's a philosophy question really.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:50 PM
Think of a sphere. What is the relationship between the surface of a sphere and its radius?
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:07 PM

I just saw that on the Wiki page after I asked the question.

Earlier I was was wondering if the inverse square law correlated to the surface area of a sphere so I checked it out to find that if the radius was doubled the area quadrupled. I was thinking maybe that was an indication that EM radiation is a fluid-like spherical expansion of energy, but I'm probably wrong.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:13 PM

originally posted by: joelr
Where did you get the idea that space-time is nothing? It's not nothing...

Oh, no. You went there.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:15 PM

I was thinking maybe that was an indication that EM radiation is a fluid-like spherical expansion of energy, but I'm probably wrong.

Actually, you're right. In that aspect the two are similar.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:15 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This is a relevant question; Because if you are saying there does not always exist the same number of photons;

You are saying that objects that are not photons can become photons and vice versa...

It's obvious that there does not always exist the same number of photons.

Objects don't become photons under normal circumstances. Objects can emit them, though.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:17 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can one photon register color in the eye/mind?

No, because your eyes aren't designed for single photon detection. It's below the noise threshold by far.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:18 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
There are no classical analogies that adequately describe a photon. The "wave packet" is a decent representation but you can find properties of photons that the "wave packet" description doesn't explain, like entanglement for example.

I don't think it's much like a ball bobbing up and down.

Hi Arbitrageur

Thanks for your thoughts. If any one, it's you who can suggest educated guess at what this all might be?
I mean duality debate. Do you have little own take on this?

In my turn, I think solving entanglement would somehow assume that light is a wave.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:26 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is physically different between these photons

Their energy level.

If we imagine them as their particle nature;

Two balls...

This is where you go down the garden path a lot. You have to envision things as macro-objects, and then you get all tangled up with 'what is my imaginary tiny ball made of' questions. Wood. They're made of wood.

What is their difference?

They are traveling the same speed;

They are both 'bobbing up and down' of their own intrinsic accord?

This is why the can of worms is opened!

The can of worms is your way of having to verbalize it.

Yes, they are traveling at the same speed. No, they are not 'bobbing up and down'.

You didnt attempt to answer my question? I thought I should have assumed as much.

Sometimes that's because people do answer you, and you don't want to hear an answer that doesn't agree with you. Or your question doesn't make sense.

White is not a color. Neither is black. White is what you perceive when you look at a distribution of light wavelengths that's got a particular frequency-to-intensity distribution. And on top of that, it also depends on what your eye/brain's white balance compensation is doing at the time. Your perception of "white" is generally not dependable.

The bridge between frequencies of photons, which can 'fit in the apparatus', but which do not register as a color, beyond which frequencies are considered non visible?

This is an example of some of your logarrhea that poses as a question but doesn't really appear to be one on examination.

I don't imagine you'll get an answer you like here because it isn't clear what you're asking.

This insinuates, that the concept of 'visible light' objectively, is nearly purely subjective concept, though we understand this I think; because we can detect light outside of the spectrum of our vision; this obviously expresses that all light is visible light...

I think not. It gets back to you trying to beat physics into an English/wordplay mold. If you want to define light as the spectrum visible to unaided human vision, then it's a tautology to say that all light is visible light, because all you're doing is reciting the definition you made. If you want to state "not all EM is visible to a human" then that would be correct.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:31 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So we have two different photons, traveling with/as different frequencies.

What is the meaning of a single photon traveling as a frequency?

A single ball, bobbing up and down?

Is that the closest analogy and capturer of reality?

Not at all. Photons aren't balls, they don't bob up and down. I'd have to say, it's not even close as an analogy.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:32 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I don't think it's much like a ball bobbing up and down.

If a photon is never like a ball bobbing up and down

A photon is never a particle.

False dichotomy 101!

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:34 PM

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

I just saw that on the Wiki page after I asked the question.

Earlier I was was wondering if the inverse square law correlated to the surface area of a sphere so I checked it out to find that if the radius was doubled the area quadrupled. I was thinking maybe that was an indication that EM radiation is a fluid-like spherical expansion of energy, but I'm probably wrong.

You gave up easily)

Actually the diagram Phage provided is good. That's an example of how light wave spreads, IMO.

DO.
edit on 17-5-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:36 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So;

Sphere in a medium;

Sphere has a surface;

How is the non moving sphere consistently effecting material medium beyond its surface (my main distilled question), ala square of distance?

Because this is another situation where energy is transferred. If gravitons are real then there is a direct energy exchange and with GR and curved space-time there is potential energy, loss of kinetic energy and things like that. Everything is nicely accounted for in terms of energy movement and conservation.

Your post way back that wasn't working as because of a weird arrow you used that must also be html. It effected my post too.

edit on 17-5-2015 by joelr because: html

edit on 17-5-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:57 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

No first photons aren't particles and they aren't waves those are just qualities of out photon. It is both it is neither.you want to put photons into a niche they are like nothing else. And at the same time like everything else since even matter can have waves.

Just because you dont know the way reality exactly exists;

Does not mean reality does not exist exactly in a way;

It is exactly more that;

Reality exists exactly in a way;

You dont know the way in which reality exactly exists;

We must use experiment and thought to best approach a comprehension of the way in which reality exists.

Anything that ever has existed and ever will exist is comparable to geometry.

NO I'm trying to tell you your just looking at diffret aspects of a photon. It's not one or the other it's both. Depends on what we're looking for as to what we see. Reminds me of the story of the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. They argue nit realizing they are describing parts of the same thing.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:17 PM

originally posted by: Phage

Anything that ever has existed and ever will exist is comparable to geometry.

Geometry does not "exist." It, like all maths, is a human construct which can be used to represent that which does (and doesn't) exist.

Geometry is not a human construct. Geometry and math are eternal facts of the pureness of self consistent rule. The self consistent truths of geometry and math are true whether humans exist or not, and 'exist' whether they exist or not.

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:20 PM
Show me a geometric point. No dimension.
Show me a geometric line. One dimension
Show me a geometric plane. Two dimensions.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM

originally posted by: joelr

We can detect gravity? We just can't detect a single quanta of it. Don't think of it like atoms, think of it as light. Imagine if photons were that small, you would not be able to show light sometimes acted like particles, just a wave.
We detect gravitons by the accumulated effect which is gravity.
You can't detect a part of a gravity field if you can't detect the quanta it's made of. How would you be able to know it's boundaries? That makes no sense.

Thats like saying you cant detect water if you cant detect a single molecule of H20 only.

Where did you get the idea that space-time is nothing? It's not nothing, it's the collective of all the fields, potentialities, energy and such. The geometry idea fits really well. The basic idea is that light always takes the shortest path. It's always moving straight ahead so when it does seem to bend it's because the space-time that it's moving in is curved but the curved path is still the most direct route. Using that geometrical description fits perfectly.

Using vectors and tensors Einsteins geometry version predicted all of Newtons algebra plus made more detailed predictions.

Down at the Planck scale there must be areas of "nothing" but possibly only in the sense that there isn't any way to understand what those gaps in space-time consist of. A different underlying reality with different rules? Who knows?
Why is defining "nothing" even a thing here? It's a philosophy question really.

Philosophy is not separate from anything. Philosophy is the totality of all possible thoughts; with hopefully a focus on the most valuable ones.

Space time is the collective of fields;

So if gravitons dont exist, you are saying gravity exists due to the geometry of other fields?

Say a planet is traveling;

Space - time is the electron field, the quark field, the em field all the fields;

You are saying all those fields are in a particular geometry,

because the planet is forcing all those fields to be in a particular geometry?

top topics

80