Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

That's pretty much how I see it in my head toO.
But back to my original question since we are measuring millimeters between wavelengths does a single photon havr a wavelength?.
I'm pretty sure it does.
and that single photons wavelength is a measure of what?

The path length the wave travels before the E field makes one cycle. Or the H field, whichever you'd prefer.

what about a single photon is oscillating exactly that you can make a measurement of it?

It's got a time-varying E and H field associated with the photon.

. now what was said earlier is that everything shrinks down the higher the frequency gets.
My question is is why at higher frequencies does that Tinkerbell ball does not get exponentially larger with higher

The more energetic, the faster that E and H field alternates. The faster it goes, the smaller it gets.

a reply to: Bedlam

sooooo.... ...a photon is like a swimming fish. it doesn't undulate up n down but left n right.

(quickly ducks a backhand from bedlam, runs out of room snickering like a little kid)


could one visualize a photons wavelength the same way you would visualize a gram of liquid (anything but h2o) blue wavelengths are like frozen. contracted dense so the one gram takes up a shot glass. in the middle green (?) it's like a liquid. fills up a soda can. same weight but taking up more volume. red is like a gas or vapor. spread out n taking up a sauna with its one gram of weight (substitute energy for weight) but to complicate things the frozen droplets don't care too much if they are overlapping each other because. although the 1 gram ice cube is taking up a shot glass of volume appearance wise in reality the photon is potentially somewhere in that shot glass but not taking up all of it, just in there somewhere. most likely within half the radius of the shot glass. so other photons can potentially also be in that shot glass too and not get in each other's way?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Right. They're probably somewhere in there, but they are unlikely to be at the same where at the same time.

a reply to: Bedlam

so does the alternating e field and h field speed dictate the frequency of the photon emitted? i.e. for there to be a photonic frequency (is that even a real term?) it has to come from a e/h field cycle. what I'm asking chicken or the egg. which comes first. or can it go both ways and one influencing the other.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

so does the alternating e field and h field speed dictate the frequency of the photon emitted? i.e. for there to be a photonic frequency (is that even a real term?) it has to come from a e/h field cycle. what I'm asking chicken or the egg. which comes first. or can it go both ways and one influencing the other.

They're the same thing. The number of times the e/h fields alternate per second IS the frequency.

a reply to: Bedlam

cool I'm catching on a bit.

thanks for your help.

you still haven't told me what the average airspeed velocity of a swallow is.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

A European swallow?

a reply to: Bedlam

There is no such thing as E and H field so try again.

But if there were, you are trying to say that, the photon itself does not move itself, but a surrounding mechanism move s it?

Or that there is no such thing as a thing a photon, there is only an ever pervading 2 component mechanism, which when disturbed, chain reacts in this ever local switching manner, the effect of which we call photon?

That sounds like an aether theory.

That sounds like there is a finer grain air to the universe and light is its sound.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Interesting that there is no E and H fields as stated so matter of fact, and yet, you write this note on a device which uses E Fields extensively in order to operate within billions of little switches, and you have some power transformers in the same device that use the H field extensively. Also installed in the same device are little devices that use both E and H fields in order to move a bit of paper up and down rapidly to produce sound.

Then... ironically you then re-invent the E and H fields just by relabelling them an aether... which... is absolutely so incorrect just by definition of aether theory it just shows your prowess.

Don't believe in fields... thats fine... but come up with a plausable or better alternative which can replace 100's of years of research... don't just say "Dont exist..." or I might as well just say... this person ImaFungi doesn't exist really and his/her questions don't exist either.

a reply to: ErosA433


An electron moves E and M(H).

E and M moves electron.

E and M are nothing but Photon.

Photon is nothing but E and M.


Why 2 components, why E and M(H), why not just 1 EM. Why not just Photon.

Or why not, no Photon, and just E and M?

Electricity and magnetism are two phenomenological results of the same thing;

Electrons move in relation to one another, this results in photons;

If you then bring other electrons into the vicinity from different angles, they will exhibit different reactions;


Electrons move in relation to one another;

You say this effects the actual E field and actual H field; Which is what a photon is, an E field and H field effected.

Then we ask how does the E FIELD AND H FIELD ACTUALLY EXIST?

And then you get into trouble.


How does E and M exist. What is E and M? What is their physicality, what is their real existence?


At point and time A, there is absolutely no EM radiation. At point A and time B, there is EM radiation; exactly what physically does reality exist as, and exactly what must occur for this to happen?


A beaver can build a dam, this does not mean it fully knows about the nature of wood or water.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm sure a beaver can identify wood and water and doesn't try to deny its existence. You argue all the time against observation this is what we see happening there is no argument. Consider physics thr rule book we can see nature follows rules through observation. What we don't know is why

originally posted by: ErosA433
Don't believe in fields... thats fine... but come up with a plausable or better alternative which can replace 100's of years of research... don't just say "Dont exist..."

This applies to not just imafungi but also the theoretical physicist he wants to collaborate with, who I think said some of our models are like a modern version of epicycles which make predictions but don't reflect reality. I can't say he's wrong, but, exactly what you said applies to those two or virtually anybody who says the current model is wrong. Even if epicycles is the wrong model, do you think people were going to stop using the best model they had if they didn't have a better one? The answer is no and it's as true now as it was then. And even if the model has "epicycles" it still works well enough for engineering purposes to design these electronic devices and the network we use to communicate between them, and many other things.

Saying our models aren't quite right is the easiest thing in the world to say and nobody denies our models have some problems, the hard part is coming up with a better model.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The only reason you cannot visualize a photon, is because you have no clue how it exists.

So, we don't have a clue?

(though I should say, you do have a clue... all you have are clues... you do not have the solution

So, we do have a clue?

Which is it? Are you going to give us the solution or do we have to wait for your Nobel Prize award 10 years after you publish your photon paper?

The opening post contains a video by Sean Caroll saying we don't know the true nature of quantum mechanics, meaning we don't know the true nature of fundamental reality. Since photons are part of quantum mechanics and I agree with Caroll's portrayal of our lack of understanding, of course the true nature of quantum mechanics isn't fully understood. But I'm happy that engineers like Bedlam understand enough about photons to put them to good use.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm sure a beaver can identify wood and water and doesn't try to deny its existence. You argue all the time against observation this is what we see happening there is no argument. Consider physics thr rule book we can see nature follows rules through observation. What we don't know is why

Exactly. The rulebook seems to work very well to me. If someone wants to say those aren't the right rules, here are better ones, lets see them and test them. But we don't claim to know why we have these rules.

a reply to: dragonridr

I am continuously attempting to enhance my comprehension of the noumena of reality (if the totality of the human race does not comprehend how a photon exists in and of itself, as itself, how the object exists as itself, how the object actually truly... I do not care, I only care about what is not known. I know a great deal about what is known about physics, I only care about what is not known, I only care about problems and my potential to offer solutions. You all are comfortable in your dead ends, you have no hopes of ever influencing physics severely and specially, so I understand your behaviors, your inability to admit your supreme ignorance, and if you do, your inability to partake in patient and coherent discussions with me to attempt to elucidate why ignorance is in these areas and how to potentially enlighten it) . I presumed individuals deeply interested in theoretical fundamental physics would have some of the same interest. From my discussions here it seems all are quite satisfied remaining in platos cave.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm sure a beaver can identify wood and water and doesn't try to deny its existence.

I guess you prove my point, because identifying something is not comprehending its most fundamental and actual nature.

The only goal of the totality of questions I have asked has been to further comprehend the most fundamental and actual nature of nature.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok so the entire time we have had discussions me and you I have been attempting to discuss reality and the truth of its existence and the attempt to comprehend and acknowledge as accurately as possible such.


Reality: My interest.

Theories, models: Your interest.


Theories, models: I have knowledge. You have knowledge.


Limits, problems, inconsistencies, paradoxes, incompleteness: We are both aware.


Furthering understanding of how reality actually exists: My only interest.


You are admitting that you have all this time only been doing what religious fanatics do; you are not willing to think beyond or question your scripture.


My motivation behind my interest in physics is not to make tools or tech, it is only to attempt for my mind to equal the truth of reality, pure knowledge for knowledges sake, because I hate mystery and ignorance and error and falseness and wrongness and ill thinking.

Because I know there are problems with models and theories, and I am purely interested in how reality exists, and my pure interest in how reality exists can help fix the problems in the history of attempt to record how reality exists.

You guys are going to all feel pretty silly when they discover and prove this is all just an illusion.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm sure a beaver can identify wood and water and doesn't try to deny its existence. You argue all the time against observation this is what we see happening there is no argument. Consider physics thr rule book we can see nature follows rules through observation. What we don't know is why

YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND WHAT A PHOTON IS. YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND HOW A PHOTON EXISTS.

YOU ARE SO HAPPY IN YOUR IGNORANCE YOU ARE SO PLEASED WITH WHAT YOU DONT KNOW

THE QUESTIONS I HAVE BROUGHT UP IN THE PAST 100 PAGES OF THIS THREAD AND IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH ARB PRIOR, ARE DIFFICULT, TROUBLING, PROBLEMATIC DEEP PROBING QUESTIONS, THAT A COMFORTABLE HUMAN BEING DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT WANT TO OBSESSES OVER. YOUR DISMISSAL OF ME AND THEM, ONLY IS A STATEMENT ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER AND YOUR STORY IN LIFE, NOT ME. YOUR DISMISSAL OF ME AND MY QUESTIONS IS ONLY SAYING THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR IGNORANCE. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIS FACT OR YOU, I ONLY EVER WANTED TO HOPE TO GAIN INTERESTING INSIGHT AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND CONFOUNDING PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS.


YOU ARE A HISTORIAN, NOT A PHYSICIST.

YOU ARE A CONSUMER, NOT A CREATOR.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Your whole argument leads back to the conservation of energy. An electron creates a photon by decreasing thr energy of thr electron. It drops to a lower energy state. Thus extra energy has to go somewhere at see it as a photon. There is no photon supply the universe draws from. And it doesn't exist prior to thr energy creating it. I'm not sure why you think we don't understand photons there has been a lot of research in to them. We know how to make them we manipulate their energy and we know what happens when we do. For example look at your screen this is a manipulation of photons.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I like it. I like the CAPS.

I just got here but what if... lol.

What if there was something else BEFORE the electron and the photon, something that was made up of electrons and photons in part, and it got split up which then birthed the endless cycle of the electron absorbing photons and accelerated electrons releasing photons. It's an ouroboros kind of cycle. I do see what you're saying! (snake eating it's own tail- chicken or egg, head or tail, photon or electron, which comes first?!)

There's something about inertia that's really mysterious to me(do electrons and photons have inertia?) and there's also something about everything balancing out and reaching for a state of equilibrium that really feels like... maybe even on electron/photon levels, this is what is happening. Like they are just trying to reach a state of equilibrium, together. Like everything is just looking for that state of equilibrium. Even I am, mentally, lol. And heat transfers always travel from hot to cold, too. There's something sneaky to that whole idea... which could be applied here... somehow. I just know there's something to it all, lol.

But an object's inertia can CHANGE, like it can be reset/changed depending on it's environment, too. Which is wild. So then, the state of equilibrium can change as well, depending on environment. Anyway... completely different direction wow.

I don't know much about anything. Have no idea about any e or h fields. Still, there it is. I love "what if's" and I love these subjects!

a reply to: dragonridr

I feel like you really completely did not comprehend at all what she/he was sayin/proposing or asking.

I think they're right... not to be offensive at all but I was literally just writing about this very same thing in a message to someone else earlier today. Some people can play an instrument really well, but they never write music for themselves. They only read it and play skillfully. Nothing wrong with that, just. They're not writers. That's all.