Is The Bohr's Model Of Atoms Still Used To Analyze Emission And Absorption Of Em Energy?

[Dubbelosix]

I have just realized a third complication, the sun only has around 10 billion years before it becomes a red giant, so maybe the new question should be, which will come first to our destruction? Perhaps a mesh of both. So 5 billion years, hopefully, we will have become advanced enough to avoid these issue to the best of our abilities... but Earth will not live, whether it be Andromeda or Earth. Time is coming to an end... unless of course, we mistreat our planet so badly, we will not find our way in the dark path we have already set. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[marcospolo]

Any one of you geniuses going to explain why my statements are incorrect, see post #19, #15

"your wrong" and "your wrong because we have observational evidence that supports our argument" is not an explanation.

 

There were three claims about light that I said were not correct.

they were:

1. light IS a particle

2. light IS a wave

3. light IS a wave particle packet thingy

 

I gave brief explanation as to why these claims cant be correct.

 

Please explain why I'm wrong.

 

 

[marcospolo]

 

Great history lesson, but that did NOT actually solve the problems I outlined.

 

1.  My statement was typically framed, "it is incorrect to say that light IS a particle..." with the emphasis on the word IS.

 

The REASON why light can never be a particle is because of the well proven and established Laws of Physics say it cant.  Which Laws? Well the ones that says that a "thing" ( the photon) that has no dimensions, and possess no Mass, and cant be detected until it causes an effect, can NOT be an OBJECT.

 

It can only be a property of an object, like heat is a property of a burning log. Heat is not an object, neither is a photon. 

 

Moreover, the photon as a Mass-less, dimensionless concept, so its impossible that it can be a physical entity.

 

"Light IS a photon" would defy the definition of the word "exists". 

 

Only things that have a physical size and the resulting property of some Mass are particles.

 

Light can not be considered by anyone's standards to be a "Particle", unless you want to rewrite all of known physics.

 

A particle is a small chunk of something that exists.  Definition of Particle: "In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass."

 

Definition of "exists: VERB: to have objective reality or being."  This is not a Photon.

 

A photon is a concept only and exclusively. Therefore Light cannot be just a concept, its real enough., but a photon  is not.

 

2.  Light does indeed give results, exhibit or mimic, if you like, the phenomena we call the "wave". But is light really a "wave" itself? Or is a wave that thing that light is DOING? The wave is the RESULT of what light does, it cannot be what light IS.

Light can not consist of an action anymore than skipping can be a noun.

 

3. Light is not going to be a two headed monster, as this is irrational. Particles and waves as one combined entity are mutually exclusive concepts. One is a verb, the other is a concept. "Wave/packets" is  an irrational idea, and therefore is has nothing to do with a rational study of Physics.

And I have already shown that light is neither a concept called a photon nor an action called a wave, so its hardly going to be a unholy marriage of the two is it?

 

More thoughts on this please...

Edited May 5, 2019 by marcospolo

[OceanBreeze]

Everything you ever wanted to know about photons (that is not in the Bible) :edevil:

[exchemist]

Everything you ever wanted to know about photons (that is not in the Bible) :edevil:

Thanks for this, an excellent reference document! I have copied the link and made it one of my bookmarks. :) 

[marcospolo]

This is the oldest definition of light:

 

Genesis 1:3

The First Day

 

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

And seeing that the light was good, God separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't deny God's wisdom: At the beggining it was dark, and God created light

by separating it from the darkness.

 

If there is light, you can see. If there is darkness, you can not see.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, this served well for more than 3,000 years: Light is what allow you to see things.

 

This is a simplified anatomy of any human eye. Something similar is built into most

of the million or more species on Earth that CAN see.

 

 

You have the retina, which covers most of the inner surface of the eye, which is

sensitive to small amounts of light (night vision) but has no resolution or color

detection capabilities. It's responsible for peripherical vision. It has a resolution

higher than 500 Megapixels.

 

You have the macula, a small area of about 4 mm², at which the eye system focus

light, and is responsible for fine resolution and color sensitivity. You see, observe,

watch what is projected into this small surface. It's similar to a CCD sensor at a digital

camera, and has an equivalent resolution of 52 Megapixels over 60º wide and 30º high

window of fine resolution, but it has a dynamic range of 1:10⁹ (sunny mid-day to night)

and color resolution higher than 1 million color combinations.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, what is light? Only God knows.

 

But we, humble humans, try to give it a physical interpretation: light is what surround us,

as a kind of energy which excite our eyes and allow us to see. Without light, we are blind.

 

This energy can come from a direct source, which is not good (as our macula saturates)

or from reflections of a source of light, which allow us to see and to OBSERVE.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Natural philosophers (later called physicists) tried for centuries to understand by which

mechanisms such radiation reaches our eyes, either from reflections or from a direct source

(like a star). And they came with the idea that such a radiation travels along the space as

waves, carrying information for our visual system.

 

In the atomistic view of the world, which was developed slowly since 1900, a second concept

of light appeared, and is that the FINAL ACTION of light on our eyes or any atomic constituent

of matter is concentrated into energy packets (photons) which strike our sensors, at a molecular

level, causing electric pulses (ejection of electrons) that our visual system processes. This is

an explanation for the "photoelectric effect" within our eyes.

 

Also, as a complementary theory, it is believed that any source of radiation emits such energy packets

in discrete amounts instead of continuous waves.

 

But photons don't travel along the space, because they don't suffer the law of inverse square of distance

attenuation, so the mathematical explanation is that light travels as waves, which are compliant with this

physical law of decrease of emitted power.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

At any case, wave or energy packet, attempts to obtain a mathematical model of light comes from

sciences involved with electromagnetic radiation.

 

Electromagnetic radiation can be lethal to living forms if the energy it carries is too high (UV and above)

 

Any other kind of radiation doesn't constitutes light.

 

And this is how things are today.

Yes, Yes, fascinating story.

But you still failed to address my observations, (being a Natural philosopher) that there are three claimed aspects of light, as you reitterated, but all three cannot be what light IS.

Therefore they are only metaphors that help describe what light seems to be able to do.

If they are recognized as metaphors, then Mathematicians have bark up the wrong trees, in using metaphors as if they were real events and objects in Physics.

This is why Mathematicians have led Physics down the toilet with all those insane theories that flatly contradict each other.

 

So, as you admit that "only god knows" what light is, then we should immediately scrap all equations that try to double guess what only God knows, and use that guess as the base for a whole new religion sometimes called  Scientism.

So bye bye Einstein and Quantum.

 

So either tell me what light really is, or admit that anything based on our ignorance of Light (or electromagnetic waves if you prefer) stands practicaally no chance of fluking it, and actually being correct.  Garbage in- Garbage out is the rule.

 

Incidentally, Maxwell never "proved" that light was part of the electromagnetic spectrum, if there is even such a thing. He never "proved" that an electromagnetic spectrum exists.

What he found, on his math pages, and supported by Faraday, was a correlation between electricity and magenetism. Which does not "prove" that they are one in the same thing.  Electricity given the right conditions, enabled magnetism, and magents, under the right conditions, enable electriicity.

If Light is part of the electromagnetic specrum, (the existance of which I question) then please explain why light is not effected by a magnet, or by electricity?

 

I see water, i see dirt, dirt gets affected by water, and water is affected my dirt. 

 

The two have a relationship, therefore I pronounce that they are but different forms of a new stuff called "mud".  Water is made out of mud, and dirt is made out of mud, therefore mud is the real stuff that produces water and dirt.

 

This is Maxwell's thinking applied to the question of what is water, and what is dirt?

Maxwells conclusions are still only his intepretation about whats going on. They are not necessarily correct.

The fact that his math failed if there was motion involved, and prompted Lorentz to develop his crazy work around, the Lorentz Transformationis, is evidence that Maxwell is simply incorrect. Applying fudges does not make things corrrect does it?

Maxwells equations are ok, giving reasonable results that mimic the observations we make, so are useful for estimating possible outcomes.

But they are not a explanation for anything.

[OceanBreeze]

marcopolo, I want you to know that I know that you are a troll.

 

 

 

 

You are not the only one who has made that observation; and an arrogant troll as well.

 

 

 can give you more examples, so you troll about it over here or another physics forum.

 

 

 

Preferably some other forum; we are getting a little tired of him here.