Photons have no time

[Mike C]

Infinite

 

First of all, I do not believe in Einsteins relativity.

If I can refute his simple mass/energy formula, than his other math can be flawed.

 

Red light has a wavelength of 6.56^-7 meters.

The velocity of light is 2.99792458^8 m/s. Divide that by 6.56^-7 and you get 4.57^14. Inverting for a single wavelength and you get 2.189^-15 seconds. This is the elapsed time for this photon.

This also explains the elapsed time for the electrons transition to create that photon.

 

This is the only kind of physics I understand based on the nature of the hydrogen atom.

 

Einstein never really did accept Quantum physics, AFAIK.

 

NS

[EStein]

..The easiest way to determine this elapsed time is by dividing the velocity of light that is given for 'one' second (3^8 meters) by the wavelength.

 

NS

 

You do mean 3*10^8 m, don't you? 3^8 m=6561 m. Light travels at 300,000,000 m/s.

[EStein]

...This is the elapsed time for this photon.

...NS

Elapsed time for the photon is meaningless because we haven't been able to make Rolexes that small. Even if we could, photons can't read.

[InfiniteNow]

First of all, I do not believe in Einsteins relativity.

I see now why you do not understand my question. I don't believe in flying spagetti monsters either, but then again, those haven't been proven over and over by multiple tests and studies.

 

Is relativity a 100% accurate description of reality? Not quite, but it is an amazingly close approximation of things on large scales. To say that you "do not believe in" it creates somewhat of an impasse if we are to have an intelligent conversation.

[CraigD]

Based on current best theory and observation, the answer to this question appears to be “no” – or, if yes, a very short interval, perhaps as short as the Planck time (about [math]5 \times 10^{-44} \mbox{s}[/math]).

Red light has a wavelength of 6.56^-7 meters.

The velocity of light is 2.99792458^8 m/s. Divide that by 6.56^-7 and you get 4.57^14. Inverting for a single wavelength and you get 2.189^-15 seconds. This is the elapsed time for this photon.

This also explains the elapsed time for the electrons transition to create that photon.

The scheme New Science proposes, in which a electron require an amount of time [math]t = \frac{\lambda}c[/math] to emit a photon (where [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength of the emitted photon, and [math]c[/math] is the speed of light), disagrees with experimentally confirmed observation that the number of excited electrons [math]n[/math] in a collection of atoms with [math]n_0[/math] excited electrons at time [math]t=0[/math] is given by [math]n = n_0 e^{-kt}[/math] (where [math]k[/math] is constant for a particular transition for a particular atom, the “Einstein A coefficient” (note that [math]\lambda[/math] is determined by the atom and transition of the electron). Although I’m unable to find or derive an Einstein A coefficient in order to give a concrete example (The observation at http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~crovisier/basemole/intro42.ascii that “although the basic parameter for the computation of line intensities is the Einstein coefficient for spontaneous emission A, this parameter is rarely directly given in the literature” seems to me an understatement! However, this JPL page gives [math]{\frac{1}{k} \dot= 3 \times 10^{-15} \mbox{s}^{-1}[/math] for the average hydrogen atom transmission, and much less for other atoms and molecules), this relationship implies that, for the typical large collection of hydrogen atoms with electrons in an excited states (eg: glowing), at least 3% of the excited electrons have emited a photon in [math]10^{-16} \mbox{s}[/math], about the shortest interval of time currently measurable.

[Mike C]

You do mean 3*10^8 m, don't you? 3^8 m=6561 m. Light travels at 300,000,000 m/s.

 

Yes. When using my calculator, I use the regular 'exponent' button that eliminates the need for the insertion of 10 rather than the other exponent button that has the x exponent.

The previous one lists the number of zeros following the decimal while the latter one does raise the value of the pre decimal figure according to the x value.

 

I will now insert the 10 as needed for a better understanding. Thanks

 

NS

[Mike C]

I see now why you do not understand my question. I don't believe in flying spagetti monsters either, but then again, those haven't been proven over and over by multiple tests and studies.

 

Is relativity a 100% accurate description of reality? Not quite, but it is an amazingly close approximation of things on large scales. To say that you "do not believe in" it creates somewhat of an impasse if we are to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Relativity is not a substitute for Quantum physics.

Quantum physics deals with the hydrogen atom 'primarily' and the HA is the major component in the universe.

 

NS

[IMAMONKEY!]

Relativity is not a substitute for Quantum physics.

Quantum physics deals with the hydrogen atom 'primarily' and the HA is the major component in the universe.

 

NS

 

How is the HA a main component of the universe? It's only an atom among tens of others that are found everywhere... Sure it's the most basic but there are parts to it so shouldn't subatomic particles be recognized as the main components of the universe? :) J/w because I'm not all to learned in this field of study.

[InfiniteNow]

Relativity is not a substitute for Quantum physics.

Agreed. I do not think anybody said it was though.

 

Quantum physics deals with the hydrogen atom 'primarily'

I do not agree with your point, but regardless, fail to see how this relates to the topic of the thread discussing the theoretical implications of temporal/spatial experience from the perspective of a photon (or even if photons can be said to have a perspective).

 

and the HA is the major component in the universe.

Again, not sure how this relates to the subject at hand, but would perhaps be more accurate if you stated that the hydrogen atom is the most abudant of the chemical elements in the universe, itself made of other constituent parts still under study, but despite verbiage, what is the relevance here?

[Mike C]

How is the HA a main component of the universe? It's only an atom among tens of others that are found everywhere... Sure it's the most basic but there are parts to it so shouldn't subatomic particles be recognized as the main components of the universe? :eek: J/w because I'm not all to learned in this field of study.

 

NO. The subatomic particle research is a huge waste of money.

The only thing they have to show for all the money put into this research is the 'quark theory'.

Quarks do NOT exist in a free state so therefore, I consider them to be useless as far as the universe is concerned.

 

While the hydrogen atoms are being fused into heavier elements and the sources of all the energies (about 95%) except the nuclear fission energies, I see nothing worthwhile in this fission research except the nuclear generators for electricity that the French have learned to harness safely.

 

NS

[IMAMONKEY!]

NO. The subatomic particle research is a huge waste of money.

The only thing they have to show for all the money put into this research is the 'quark theory'.

Quarks do NOT exist in a free state so therefore, I consider them to be useless as far as the universe is concerned.

 

While the hydrogen atoms are being fused into heavier elements and the sources of all the energies (about 95%) except the nuclear fission energies, I see nothing worthwhile in this fission research except the nuclear generators for electricity that the French have learned to harness safely.

 

NS

 

So you are saying subatomic particles don't exist? :eek: And here I am believing everything my Chemistry teacher tells me... :)

 

(if you can't tell I would like an explanation... I'm not quite sure why you dislike the Quark theory, and also why they don't [or how] exist in a free state. I don't understand that.)

 

Ever confused,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[Mike C]

Infinite

 

The photons we see are a product of the electron transitions within the atoms. So, this is the only photons I am interested in.

 

Does those photons you are talking about, the same ones I am talking about or are you talking about Einsteins photons in space?

 

NS

[Buffy]

The photons we see are a product of the electron transitions within the atoms. So, this is the only photons I am interested in.

Huh? Most photons we see are generated by nuclear fusion occuring in the Sun.... or are you now redefining fusion or claiming it doesn't exist?

 

Inconsequentially,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

Relativity is not a substitute for Quantum physics.

Quantum physics deals with the hydrogen atom 'primarily' and the HA is the major component in the universe.

 

... We need BOTH relativity and quantum physics to have any understanding of a photon. In particular, to really understand photons, we need quantum field theory, which is the union of the two theories.

 

NO. The subatomic particle research is a huge waste of money.

The only thing they have to show for all the money put into this research is the 'quark theory'.

Quarks do NOT exist in a free state so therefore, I consider them to be useless as far as the universe is concerned.

 

Except without them, how can you possible have any nuclei besides a single proton, or neutron? You can't even explain heavy hydrogen without a theory of subatomic particles!

-Will

[Mike C]

Huh? Most photons we see are generated by nuclear fusion occuring in the Sun.... or are you now redefining fusion or claiming it doesn't exist?

 

Inconsequentially,

Buffy

 

The photons you see at the surface of the Sun are the ones that comply to the Bohr binary planetary model of the hydrogen atom (HA).

 

The fusion process in the Sun does not create the photons but instead, creates the 'strong forces' that lead to the 'binding' of the HA into deuterons and helium nuclei.

 

The central plasma in the Sun generates the 'high' energy photons that radiate to the surface of the Sun to be re-radiated as photons according to the Bohr model.

 

These are my opinions.

 

NS

[Mike C]

... We need BOTH relativity and quantum physics to have any understanding of a photon. In particular, to really understand photons, we need quantum field theory, which is the union of the two theories.

 

Relativity has nothing to do with Quantum physics.

It primarily deals with gravity.

 

Except without them, how can you possible have any nuclei besides a single proton, or neutron? You can't even explain heavy hydrogen without a theory of subatomic particles!

-Will

 

What has the 'strong' force got to do with relativity? Or the 'weak' force, for that matter?

See my reply above to Buffy.

 

NS

[EStein]

Can we liven this up a bit? I'm geting bohred.