It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 260
74
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Don't even try to figure it out he's very confused even about spin which he seems to be linking to angular momentum as well. For example this whole thing falls apart because direction of spin can be changed but elementary particles cannot be made to spin faster or slower. Direction means nothing its the energy that it has that's imoortant .




posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: joelr
The EU thing is a crank theory: rationalwiki.org...
I agree, but I had no idea they cited one of my ATS threads in the "critics" section until I just checked that link!

I would have written a much more comprehensive de-bunking thread than that if I knew it was going to be cited.


Wow, that's cool.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: joelr

sorry to interfere.

It depends what do you call photon. Photon is energy and gluon is energy. Gluon is special state of energy. They are made of photons (see definition of photon). Of course, you see contradiction where there is none. Gluon is bound energy state where photon is unbound state of the same energy. Or do you think gluon is made of something else than energy?

)cheers



No interference at all, please jump in anytime.

A photon is not energy. There is a new age concept that light is energy but it's misleading.
Light has energy, photons have frequency, wavelength, and energy. They also have a spin number.
The mass/energy equivalence does not mean energy and particles are the same thing.

But everything has energy, including gluons and photons. There are many forms energy can take and an exact description of energy is hard to pin down. Some websites will say light is energy so it can get confusing.

Photons are quanta of electromagnetism while gluons take part in interactions that involve the colour charge. The charge associated with quarks. Gluons can interact with other gluons and they mediate the strong force which is different from EM.

But both photon and gluon are bosons and force carriers. Photon is the massless force carrier of EM and the gluon is the massless force carrier of the strong force. So in that way they are very similar.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Can two rocks colliding, create the big bang?

That's my question.
That's the hypothesis for how the moon was created, not for how the universe was created. One rock was Earth and the other was a Mars-sized rock nicknamed Theia.

All the science documentaries I saw said scientists aren't really sure what caused the big bang. I had to change channels to a non-science channel to get that explanation, though it doesn't sound very scientific:




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
How might the frequency of a single photon be measured? You have some kind of detector, and a single photon exists and is traveling towards you, what is the essential fundamental characteristic of mode and method of possible detection to determine the frequency of that photon?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
If the frequency is low enough, we think individual photons are still present but we can't measure them separately. It takes more than one photon at low frequencies to even be detectable and even at higher frequencies you need more photons to get more accurate frequency measurements.

If the photon was say in the visible light frequency range, you could send a photon through a spectrometer and its direction will be affected by its frequency but even if you have sensitive enough detectors, frequency measurement is not going to be that accurate with one photon, partly because of the uncertainty principle which infers the photon doesn't have an exact single frequency:


Remember that?

NIST has very accurate methods for measuring the frequency of large numbers of photons in lasers for example, based on very precise optical clocks, and this method isn't subject to as much uncertainty as the measurement of a single photon. Each photon still has uncertainty but the frequencies of a population of laser photons can be characterized more accurately than a single photon, if you can do that at all. For example, even the best detectors don't have a 100% detection rate, so there's some probability your single photon may not register in any one of your detectors.


edit on 2016223 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does the frequency of a single photon mean, what does frequency mean, and in what way does a single photon physically have this characteristic? Frequency as in: up and down; what about the photon is going up and down? The photon is, what, going up and down? How many different identifiable things make up the photon? Do those things go up and down in different ways? Can a photon exist and have 0 frequency, meaning exist but have 0 going up and down, flat line?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does the frequency of a single photon mean, what does frequency mean, and in what way does a single photon physically have this characteristic? Frequency as in: up and down; what about the photon is going up and down? The photon is, what, going up and down? How many different identifiable things make up the photon? Do those things go up and down in different ways? Can a photon exist and have 0 frequency, meaning exist but have 0 going up and down, flat line?


Or can frequency in this context be a measurement of length (or volume); a photon could be physically larger or smaller, or longer or shorter (like how 5 inches is longer than 1 inch) and a single 5 photon would interact and indicate x5 energy and x5 frequency; if a 1 photon interacted with detector it would indicate x1 energy x5 frequency;

Is there any evidence that the concept of the term frequency being used as a measurement of the movement of matter in time and space, at all, and then relate it to the concept of energy, energy being the quantity of force of the movement of matter in time and space, then there is really no evidence that physically the photon is anything like a 'something really go up and down in space';

is there any evidence, that photons might not only be like 3d quanta of material, long or stout, but the volume of the matter of which, is equal to in some way the concept of energy, and then for a single photon one can say its frequency is its energy; but for the most part, the concept of frequency is used in relation to multiple photons, in terms of the relation of the quantity of photons, signifying a quantity of energy, registered in an amount of time;

What I am asking there, is could it be, that the concept of a 'physically moving up and down in real space in at least 1 reference frame; wave' has nothing to do with 'what a single photon exactly is and how it tends to and potentially always exactly moves'?

In relation to a photon; what about the photon, goes 'up and down' as associated with the concept of 'wave' and 'frequency'?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does the frequency of a single photon mean, what does frequency mean, and in what way does a single photon physically have this characteristic?


It means - how often per second are the E and H fields which constitute the wave nature of the photon oscillating? Conversely, what is the energy of the particle aspect of the photon? Each photon has this, it's a base characteristic.



Frequency as in: up and down; what about the photon is going up and down? The photon is, what, going up and down?


No. Nothing's going up and down.



How many different identifiable things make up the photon?


Photons are an elementary penguin. There are no identifiable things. Just photon-ness. Photons have a few characteristics, but no components.



Can a photon exist and have 0 frequency, meaning exist but have 0 going up and down, flat line?


That's a good question. I would normally say "no", because then you would have a photon with zero energy. It would be larger than the size of the universe. Therefore, I'd say the lower bound for an existing photon energy level is likely to be one whose wavelength is the size of the universe.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does the frequency of a single photon mean, what does frequency mean, and in what way does a single photon physically have this characteristic? Frequency as in: up and down; what about the photon is going up and down? The photon is, what, going up and down? How many different identifiable things make up the photon? Do those things go up and down in different ways? Can a photon exist and have 0 frequency, meaning exist but have 0 going up and down, flat line?


Or can frequency in this context be a measurement of length (or volume); a photon could be physically larger or smaller, or longer or shorter (like how 5 inches is longer than 1 inch) and a single 5 photon would interact and indicate x5 energy and x5 frequency; if a 1 photon interacted with detector it would indicate x1 energy x5 frequency;

Is there any evidence that the concept of the term frequency being used as a measurement of the movement of matter in time and space, at all, and then relate it to the concept of energy, energy being the quantity of force of the movement of matter in time and space, then there is really no evidence that physically the photon is anything like a 'something really go up and down in space';

is there any evidence, that photons might not only be like 3d quanta of material, long or stout, but the volume of the matter of which, is equal to in some way the concept of energy, and then for a single photon one can say its frequency is its energy; but for the most part, the concept of frequency is used in relation to multiple photons, in terms of the relation of the quantity of photons, signifying a quantity of energy, registered in an amount of time;

What I am asking there, is could it be, that the concept of a 'physically moving up and down in real space in at least 1 reference frame; wave' has nothing to do with 'what a single photon exactly is and how it tends to and potentially always exactly moves'?

In relation to a photon; what about the photon, goes 'up and down' as associated with the concept of 'wave' and 'frequency'?



Stop thinking of light as a particle I've told you this before. Its not a particle its not a wave It does however have properties of both. If you truly want to understand you have to look at 400 years of research starting with load stones and amber. Then move into the study of electrics and from there maxwells work. Then the photoelectric effect of course and then einstine and after that more modern experiments like lasers for example. You continually ask the same questions and over and over people point you to experiments. Problem is your not seeing the the answers you want because your unwilling to do the research.

I'll give you an answer but once again you won't understand. A photon is a packet of energy. It is self propagating through an electro magnetic wave. These two things come together to create what we call EM radiation. When talking about frequency in a photon its not about jiggling anything its about the measurement of energy in a quanta of light. You and many others see thr doyble slit experiment as showing light to be a particle it didnt. It showed light was made up of something smaller and waves were a collection of things we chose to call photons.For example we learned that producing more light does not have the same effect as changing its frequency this makes no sense unless not all quanta of light have the same energy.So i can kill you with a blast of say xrays and visible light you wouldn't feel an effect at all even if I created 10000 times more.
edit on 2/23/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does the frequency of a single photon mean, what does frequency mean, and in what way does a single photon physically have this characteristic? Frequency as in: up and down; what about the photon is going up and down? The photon is, what, going up and down? How many different identifiable things make up the photon? Do those things go up and down in different ways? Can a photon exist and have 0 frequency, meaning exist but have 0 going up and down, flat line?


Those terms describe the wave function aspects of EM and it works mathematically but it doesn't mean you can try to picture 2 actual waves in a classical sense. It's just that wave equations work on quanta.

It looks like you are asking about wave function concepts but for a single photon instead of a EM wave. There it gets complicated.
For other particles (with mass) there is a first quantization which shows the wave properties but leaves out the relativistic properties. The momentum and position become operators because there is no actual total value for them.

Second quantization deals with relativity and makes the entire wave an operator.
For EM the quantization of Maxwell equations starts off with a second quantization and skips the first.
So there isn't a wave function for a photon in the way you are asking.
It's been done but it's not a proven thing.


But a zero frequency just means in a given time (like 1 second) zero wave lengths pass by a given area.
This answer can be explored much deeper with math. Most of these concepts require a mathematical discussion to probe deeper into the concepts. So there is more to say but you would need to find someone to explain the equations side of it.
edit on 23-2-2016 by joelr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

It looks like you are asking about wave function concepts but for a single photon instead of a EM wave. There it gets complicated.


It's actually far simpler than that.

He thinks the photon is literally bouncing up and down like the picture Arbitrageur put up about wave packets a few posts upthread.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: joelr

It looks like you are asking about wave function concepts but for a single photon instead of a EM wave. There it gets complicated.


It's actually far simpler than that.

He thinks the photon is literally bouncing up and down like the picture Arbitrageur put up about wave packets a few posts upthread.



Oh, ha.

Well Imafungi if you want to see how to probe your idea of frequency = E for a single photon (or photon wave function)
here is one way it was attempted. It's not actually using frequency but it's attempting to give a wave function to a single photon. And frequency is a wave concept so it's related.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you understand some of these concepts you may realize that much of these concepts live in mathematical spaces.
Which are analogous to something we can't fully imagine with our classical minds.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Could always use one of these beasts too en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam



It means - how often per second are the E and H fields which constitute the wave nature of the photon oscillating? Conversely, what is the energy of the particle aspect of the photon? Each photon has this, it's a base characteristic.


What exactly is the E field and what exactly is the H field, and how exactly do they oscillate?

What does the E field physical equal, in terms of volume, density, mass, momentum?

Is the E field a singular object made up of multiple objects?

Does the E field truly exist at all planck lengths of space?

What is the mass of the E field at each planck length of space?

Where is there room for the H field if the E field literally takes up all space?

Can the E field be made to be more or less dense?

Can the E field be separated from the H field?

If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?

Why, theoretically, hypothetically, can the E field not be made to oscillate slower?

The E field and H field always oscillate at the same speed, speed of light, the difference is the angles of the fields to one another?





Photons are an elementary penguin. There are no identifiable things. Just photon-ness. Photons have a few characteristics, but no components.


A photon is nothing but the E and H field oscillating, therefore a photon is multiple components? Identifiable things?

You can say a baseball is a baseball, 1 thing, 1 identifiable thing, baseball; but we know there are components, the stitches, the outer fabric, the inner cork and stuff, and then even further atoms and what not; you are saying a photon is 1 single thing; but that a photon is the oscillation between E and H field, that seems contradictory on your part.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
For example we learned that producing more light does not have the same effect as changing its frequency this makes no sense unless not all quanta of light have the same energy.


What is, fundamentally, physically, done to alter photon frequency?

Some superficial answer would be: Turn the dial up on the photon gun;

But I put, fundamentally, physically, to try to direct your attention to the most micro details of photo creation; on the fundamental levels, what occurs to alter photon frequency? Alter velocity of electrons? Producing more light without altering frequency is done how; keep sending electrons but at a constant velocity?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr


But a zero frequency just means in a given time (like 1 second) zero wave lengths pass by a given area.
This answer can be explored much deeper with math. Most of these concepts require a mathematical discussion to probe deeper into the concepts. So there is more to say but you would need to find someone to explain the equations side of it.


The thought of 0 frequency, to me, gets into discussion of 'what physically, materially exists, when it is not being measured, and not in mans knowledge';

We measure light, and say it is x frequency; and there are developed theories to say light is physically y, and moves a,b,c;

And it is discovered that there is a relationship between electrons and light detection;

And so it is thought that when electrons move, light is created;

And so I ask something like; before electrons move where is the light?

And then the word energy is invented and described, and then light is said to not be matter, not to be something that always exists, but energy, something that can be created, or transformed... to try to skirt my question;

And then it is said that light is an E field and an H field, oscillating; Do the E and H field exist in a not oscillating state at any planck length of the universe?

Or E and H field do not exist anywhere in the universe, unless an electron moves, then a real E and H field come into existence out of nowhere surrounding the electron that moved, and oscilate at a precise speed everytime, but varying frequency some how?

If the E and H field are real physical things, they must in some sense have rest mass or rest energy, and if they can exist without ocsilating, then that would be light at 0 frequency, and the universe might be full of that, real field... or not, because I am skeptical about saying the universe is full of any 'field.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
is it possible to magnetize mercury?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can the E field be separated from the H field?

If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?

Why, theoretically, hypothetically, can the E field not be made to oscillate slower?
Here is a static E field, not oscillating so frequency is zero, and it's separate from H-field:

However if E-field varies with time then E-field and H field are inseparable, see Maxwell's equations. (Like you would actually look at them, LOL).


originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
is it possible to magnetize mercury?
The planet is already magnetized. The element, no. Even if you freeze the mercury, it's not any more magnetizable than copper or aluminum as far as I know.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What exactly is the E field and what exactly is the H field, and how exactly do they oscillate?


The E field is the condition of space in which a test charge will be accelerated but a neutral particle will not.

The H field is the condition of space in which a moving test charge will be deflected in a uniform circular manner.

There's probably other definitions. But the E field is what you would call the electric field, the H field, the magnetic field.

I know at this point you will ask 'what are they made of' because you like Socratic reductions. But they aren't made of anything. They just are.



What does the E field physical equal, in terms of volume, density, mass, momentum?

Is the E field a singular object made up of multiple objects?


These questions don't make sense in context.



Does the E field truly exist at all planck lengths of space?


Yes



What is the mass of the E field at each planck length of space?


Fields don't have mass.



Where is there room for the H field if the E field literally takes up all space?


They aren't exclusive.



Can the E field be made to be more or less dense?


More or less intense.



Can the E field be separated from the H field?


If they're static.



If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?


Can you separate the dancer from the dance?



Why, theoretically, hypothetically, can the E field not be made to oscillate slower?

The E field and H field always oscillate at the same speed, speed of light, the difference is the angles of the fields to one another?


Got that wrong. The oscillations happen dependent on the energy of the photon. The propagation is at the speed of light. It's not the same thing.






A photon is nothing but the E and H field oscillating, therefore a photon is multiple components? Identifiable things?


A way of looking at photons is that they are the condition that you have E and H fields oscillating at right angles to each other, propagating through space.



You can say a baseball is a baseball, 1 thing, 1 identifiable thing, baseball; but we know there are components, the stitches, the outer fabric, the inner cork and stuff, and then even further atoms and what not; you are saying a photon is 1 single thing; but that a photon is the oscillation between E and H field, that seems contradictory on your part.



Except it's a lot more complicated than baseballs. In a way that's not possible to express exactly in English. Which, of course, you won't believe.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 257  258  259    261  262  263 >>

log in

join