Photons have no time

[InfiniteNow]

Did anyone ever consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a photon, that it might be some other phenomenon that we call a photon?

 

Per your recent posts, I'm guessing this may have something to do with an expanding magnetic field? Ditto on Freeztar's request... can you elaborate a bit? :cup:

[Little Bang]

I think that what we call a photon is nothing more than a disturbance caused by the electrons of atoms changing energy levels, which is something like throughing a charged rock in a magnetic pond. Those ripples of energy are what we call a photon.

[Buffy]

...and that's different....how?

 

You say photoon and I say photon,

Buffy

[Little Bang]

To me Buffy it provides a medium in which light can propagate. If that's not different please explain.

[Buffy]

Medium? You mean like Ether? Does it matter than Ether has been shown not to exist? Photons are wave phenomena, and they don't need a Medium....

 

Shining a light on it,

Buffy

[Little Bang]

That's good Buffy, and all this time foolish me thought that waves of every other kind in universe require a medium to propagate. Thank you for straightening me out.

[InfiniteNow]

My sense is that you're simply replacing God with Allah. Let's assume what you say holds... That photons are disturbances caused by orbital shifts of electrons. How does this change our current understanding? What have you done for me lately? :cup:

[spectrum disorder]

Well, you've reached the tip of the head of the confusion of GR. That light as a wave always propogates at a speed of c, and that photons must obey the same basic rule and that means it must travel at c irregardless of frame of reference. Thus a photon must be "unstuck in time" and yet traveling through space, or is it what defines space-time? AHHHHHHHHH!

 

I've always thought about that too. Two different things - photons with no time travelling through what we describe as spacetime...

 

A photon travelling for 5 light years has taken that amount of time in our view, but in the photon's view (of course there isnt a photon view - its just a hypothesis!) its got there in an instant.

 

Isnt 'spacetime' something of a joke? I think the answer is that old chestnut -time doesnt even exist

[Little Bang]

Infi, I once watched a Discovery channel progam about light. They had several physicists that talked about light. They discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment in the search for the aether or medium in which light would propagate. At the end of the show the news guy asked one of the scientists " If there is no medium for light to propagate what is it that's waving? " The scientist responded with, " Probability ". That is not a very satisfying answer. I don't know if the magnetic fields of the universe is the medium in which light propagates or not. It just seems logical that there would be some medium. Since the standard model does not worry about how a photon gets from point A to point B then anyone who does has got to be stupid.

[InfiniteNow]

But, perhaps the "probability is waving" answer isn't so far fetched. We experience only our own version of the now. It is our absolute frame relative to all others, yet your now is different than my own and simulataneously a fully aligned concept. We have discovered that there is a strange quantum world, uncertain and all, implications of multiple universes and collapsing functions. However, all of these things are first subject to our own interpretation... to our own perception... to our minds. The choice is yours as to what satisfies and what does not.

 

I'm going a bit metaphysical here, I suppose, and I do not intend to stray too far from socially accepted reality, but what I mean to imply is...

 

It's all waving probability until we make it our own. Until that wave function collapses, it's a collection of unobserved wavy things... photons and all.

 

It went through both slits until I looked at one of them. No way! Yet... s'true.

 

 

If you want satisfying, eat a Snickers. :hihi:

[Mike C]

Infi, I once watched a Discovery channel progam about light. They had several physicists that talked about light. They discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment in the search for the aether or medium in which light would propagate. At the end of the show the news guy asked one of the scientists " If there is no medium for light to propagate what is it that's waving? " The scientist responded with, " Probability ". That is not a very satisfying answer. I don't know if the magnetic fields of the universe is the medium in which light propagates or not. It just seems logical that there would be some medium. Since the standard model does not worry about how a photon gets from point A to point B then anyone who does has got to be stupid.

 

This is amazing that a scientist does not know how light is propagated.

 

There is a 'medium' that light uses to move through space and that is the EM fields that surround the charged particles that generate the PHOTONS.

And these photons are NOT waves, but instead, are PULSES.

 

I wrote an article on this website about the 'Creaton of Photons' See below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/10739-creation-photons.html

 

I hope this will clear up any confusion about the nature of light.

 

NS

[arkain101]

The nature of light and the reality of light are not exactly the same thing.

 

I disagree with this simple-all-is-end-all statement about light.

 

There is more to this than that.

 

Example.

 

If the universe consisted of two objects, and you only allowed yourself to observe from each of these two reference frames. If something changed between them, ie, position, etc...

 

Which object truly moved?

 

Secondly, the universe can not be viewed or even bothered to be contemplated as a big bang, if you believe in following the grounds of relativity. Or simple relative observation.

 

If in the beginning there was an explosion, then the only reference frames and observation frames you are capable to imagine with a thought experiment with are the frames that are part of the explosion.

 

So in other words, you would never see the boom, for you are part of the beginning.

 

Thus the birth of the universe in the view of a big bang would be observed as one would try to described being a particle on a star for example.

 

Though, defining the particle in itself is no easier task.

 

The light then is what? If it moves through a medium, then you define all that is and ever will be as a EM field of possibly infinite size.

 

If this is so, or could be so, then what is EM field? Is it logically possible to define something that can be considered fundamental, or singular framed?

 

Can our human logic based on our macroscopic experience find a logical explaination to what this EM field stuff is?

 

Sure we can call it dimensions, or energy, but physically, like holding an apple in my hand, without the use of a human sense to describe what this supposed field is, then it can not exist physically.

 

If it is the source of what things are than it can not be part of the things made possible by this source. Logically it is not possible.

 

If we stay in the lines of what exactly reason constitutes as, in an cosmological perspective, we find some things are simply unlogical, meaning, no you can not explain it, just as one can not explain infinity, it can not be done in a mental construct.

[Mike C]

the universe can not be viewed or even bothered to be contemplated as a big bang, if you believe in following the grounds of relativity. Or simple relative observation.

 

If in the beginning there was an explosion, then the only reference frames and observation frames you are capable to imagine with a thought experiment with are the frames that are part of the explosion.

 

So in other words, you would never see the boom, for you are part of the beginning.

 

Thus the birth of the universe in the view of a big bang would be observed as one would try to described being a particle on a star for example.

 

First of all, the BB is not portrayed as an explosion. That was just a label given to it by Fred Hoyle.

 

The BB'ers promote it as 'just' an expansion of space.

 

However, the extremely high temperatures at the origin and the cooling during the expansion sounds suspicious because they also say the expansion is 'uniform'. This, in spite of the temperature variations and the effects of gravity that would slow down the expansion.

 

The light then is what? If it moves through a medium, then you define all that is and ever will be as a EM field of possibly infinite size.

 

If this is so, or could be so, then what is EM field? Is it logically possible to define something that can be considered fundamental, or singular framed?

 

Can our human logic based on our macroscopic experience find a logical explaination to what this EM field stuff is?

 

Sure we can call it dimensions, or energy, but physically, like holding an apple in my hand, without the use of a human sense to describe what this supposed field is, then it can not exist physically.

 

If it is the source of what things are than it can not be part of the things made possible by this source. Logically it is not possible.

 

If we stay in the lines of what exactly reason constitutes as, in an cosmological perspective, we find some things are simply unlogical, meaning, no you can not explain it, just as one can not explain infinity, it can not be done in a mental construct.

 

I do not treat the Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Charge and Momentum as illogical.

Likewise for the M-M experiments and all the advanced observations of todays instruments and technology.

 

If you can explain to me why these accerators smashing protons to 'bits' as to the reasons for this research, than you may have the answer you want.

 

Are they searching for the 'god' particles? That is the question.

 

The current technology is enough for me.

The current Laws of Conservation have answered that for me.

There was NO beginning or will there be an 'end' to our universe.

 

NS

[Little Bang]

Arkain, there was no heat at the start of the big bang. Heat is a measure of particle motion. There were no particles.

 

Until the electron proton pairs condensed out of what ever the BB was made, we also didn't have gravity, no mass no gravity.

[InfiniteNow]

Guys, do this in another thread. I'm tired of watching threads get hijacked to argue about Big Bang, and I'm sure as **** not going to let you do it AGAIN in this thread. Thanks.

 

 

:shrug:

[Little Bang]

Your right Infi, I apologize.

[aytche]

Respectfully submit; a photon has a wavelenght. Will it not take a bit of time to traverse any point in space ? Will not a transverse wave have a front end and a back end, so to speak ?