Photons have no time

[Mike C]

Again, you miss the point of the thread. Your comment above might apply if we were asking about the elapsed time of a photon relative to an outside observer, however, we are not.

 

Oh yeah... you don't believe in relativity. :artgallery:

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and call the alert:

 

We have a forum troll here, people.

 

All attempts to correct wrong concepts and presentations have fallen on deaf ears, and none of the claims have been supported. That is against the rules of this site.

 

Either change the rules, or throw Mr. No Science out with the refuse.

 

Boy, this character has gone over the edge.

 

I just proved above that photons have a time dimension and he ignores the simple arithmatic that proves it.

 

He also lives in Texas. A state in the USA governed by a Constitution that promotes FREE SPEECH.

 

So I am sure the Europeans here do not object to what I write that I consider the truth.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Boy, this character has gone over the edge.

 

I just proved above that photons have a time dimension and he ignores the simple arithmatic that proves it.

 

He also lives in Texas. A state in the USA governed by a Constitution that promotes FREE SPEECH.

 

So I am sure the Europeans here do not object to what I write that I consider the truth.

:shrug:

 

Btw, that *brilliant* proof you offered demonstrated again a misuse of scientific notation. You essentially stated that the [math]\lambda[/math] of red light is 1,913nm (or 1.9µm), when in fact it's 650nm.

 

What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

[Boerseun]

So I am sure the Europeans here do not object to what I write that I consider the truth.

We don't object to lots o' things, actually.

 

We do, however, object to constant claims being made without supporting evidence. You keep on saying "That is inadmissable, because it contains General Relativity, and I don't believe in General Relaitivity. So you can't say this or that". All we ask for, humbly, I might add, is to ante up. You base your point of departure on the incorrectness of General Relitivity. You have now taken up the mantle to disprove General Relitivity. So do it, then.

 

This might be fun to watch, but hundreds, nay, thousands of people have tried and failed since GR's inception.

 

But we cannot, and will not, reason with you on the premise of "I don't believe in GR" alone. Then your whole philosophy and cosmogeny belongs slap bang in Strange Claims. So, either disprove General Relativity, or face the harsh truth that you might simply be wrong.

[CraigD]

I'm going to go ahead and call the alert:

 

We have a forum troll here, people.

 

All attempts to correct wrong concepts and presentations have fallen on deaf ears, and none of the claims have been supported. That is against the rules of this site.

 

Either change the rules, or throw Mr. No Science out with the refuse.

Although Astronomy and Cosmology is not one of the forums I moderate, in my moderatorly opinion, New Science has consistently and courteously made a good-faith effort to back up his claims, occasionally with references, mostly with his own arguments and links to his own arguments. Evidenced by rebuttals of his claims an his redsquared reputation, most interested members disagree with his claims and find his evidence and arguments unconvincing, but, contrary to some opinions, our site rules only require that one back up one’s claims, behave well, and heed a few specific dos and don’t, not that one be correct or accept correction.

 

One rule that I fear NS is verging on violating is

9. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

An implication of this rule is that, when it becomes clear that few members accept your unconventional theories, it’s necessary to confine your continued arguing of them to threads pertaining to them, refraining from attacking the accepted theories presented in other threads. They may not attract as much attention this way, but you’ll remain on the good, non-trollish side of our rules and moderator community, and likely you and everybody else have a more enjoyable hypography experience.

 

InfiniteNow is treading on the “be nice” rule. Calling members trolls, expecially in DarkOrchid and sign-framed text, though it can be satisfying, is not very nice. Clicking the “report post” button is more polite, rule-abiding, and usually more effective, alternative.

He [infiniteNow] also lives in Texas. A state in the USA governed by a Constitution that promotes FREE SPEECH.

Article 4 section 5 of the US Constitution requires that every state in the union, not just Texas, provide a “republican form of government” to the People, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as requiring that every state promote “free speech”. However, that speech is protected does not imply that what it expresses is correct: arguments that up is down, the Sun orbits a flat Earth, God exists, God doesn’t exist, Paris Hilton is the second coming of Christ, or relativity is right or wrong are equally protected.

 

Hypography is not a branch of the US, state, or local government, and thus is not required to allow all speech protected by the US Constitution. It does have a policy of allowing unconventional, controversial, and likely very wrong speech, provided such speech follows the site rules.

 

I now return this post to the subject of this thread: do photons have not time? IMHO, this question was answered much earlier in the thread: being as photons (or any ensemble of only gauge bosons) lack the theoretical possibility of interacting in such a way to measure zero or non-zero time intervals, the answer is “yes and no/the question is poorly formed”. Note that “poorly formed” does not imply “not interesting and worthwhile to ask”.

[Mike C]

:shrug:

 

Btw, that *brilliant* proof you offered demonstrated again a misuse of scientific notation. You essentially stated that the [math]\lambda[/math] of red light is 1,913nm (or 1.9µm), when in fact it's 650nm.

 

What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

 

I quoted above that the wavelength of redlight radiated by the hydrogen atom is 6.56^7 meters. That translates into .000000656 meters or 6.56^-10 nanometers.

I use meters that is the standard SI unit.

 

Where did you get the figure 1,913 nms?

 

NS

[Mike C]

We don't object to lots o' things, actually.

 

We do, however, object to constant claims being made without supporting evidence. You keep on saying "That is inadmissable, because it contains General Relativity, and I don't believe in General Relaitivity. So you can't say this or that". All we ask for, humbly, I might add, is to ante up. You base your point of departure on the incorrectness of General Relitivity. You have now taken up the mantle to disprove General Relitivity. So do it, then.

 

This might be fun to watch, but hundreds, nay, thousands of people have tried and failed since GR's inception.

 

But we cannot, and will not, reason with you on the premise of "I don't believe in GR" alone. Then your whole philosophy and cosmogeny belongs slap bang in Strange Claims. So, either disprove General Relativity, or face the harsh truth that you might simply be wrong.

 

I refuted GR because it has no explanation for the 'dark matter' problem in the galactic clusters that was pointed out by Fritz Zwicky back in 1933.

I call this 'dark matter' problem now as Zwicky Gravity (ZG) since he was the discoverer.

 

Since GR is based on the Newtonian gravities effect on 'bending space' to cause the 'curvature of space', than I hypothesize that ZG would cause a large 'warp' of space that is not evident since the ZG is from 10 to 20 times greater than Newtinian gravity.

There is still no explanation for the dark matter problem except the one I provided on this website.

 

NS

 

 

Also, Einsteins mass/energy formula is easily falsified since it is the FORCES that create the energies. The magnetic force is the primary force responsible for the photons generated in the stars.and it is variable relative to the electron velocities. So that accounts for the different energy levels of the hydrogen atom wavelengths.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

I quoted above that the wavelength of redlight radiated by the hydrogen atom is 6.56^7 meters.

 

That translates into .000000656 meters or 6.56^-10 nanometers.

I use meters that is the standard SI unit.

 

Where did you get the figure 1,913 nms?

 

NS

I think I was pretty clear in that you are not expressing the scientific notation correctly.

 

Above, you've stated 6.56 to the seventh power.

Previously, you stated 6.56 to the negative seventh power. This is the one I corrected for you.

 

What you mean to say is 6.56 times ten to the negative seventh power.

 

Big difference.

6.56m to the negative seventh power equals 1913nm.

 

 

Per the poorly formed question, I actually didn't ask any question in the opening post. I basically read that, to quote CraigD, "photons lack the theoretical possibility of interacting in such a way to measure zero or non-zero time intervals," and was looking for more information on why this is. :)

 

It's been a fun exploration, and very educational. :)

 

 

By the way, this part is wrong too:

That translates into .000000656 meters or 6.56^-10 nanometers.

[InfiniteNow]

I refuted GR because it has no explanation for the 'dark matter' problem in the galactic clusters that was pointed out by Fritz Zwicky back in 1933.

I call this 'dark matter' problem now as Zwicky Gravity (ZG) since he was the discoverer.

 

Since GR is based on the Newtonian gravities effect on 'bending space' to cause the 'curvature of space', than I hypothesize that ZG would cause a large 'warp' of space that is not evident since the ZG is from 10 to 20 times greater than Newtinian gravity.

There is still no explanation for the dark matter problem except the one I provided on this website.

 

NS

 

 

Also, Einsteins mass/energy formula is easily falsified since it is the FORCES that create the energies. The magnetic force is the primary force responsible for the photons generated in the stars.and it is variable relative to the electron velocities. So that accounts for the different energy levels of the hydrogen atom wavelengths.

 

NS

 

Relevance to thread?

[Boerseun]

Relevance to thread?

I guess he was trying to disprove GR, as I asked in my previous post.

 

But I don't think New Science understands what he is trying to disprove.

 

For starters, it's not 'Newtonian Gravity' that's bending space, it's mass that bends neighbouring space. We experience that curvature in space as gravity. There's a world of difference to what you say it is, and what it really is. And I fail to see how Dark Matter creates a problem for this. It was mostly because of the gravitational behaviour of far-off galaxies that formed the initial Dark Matter hypothesis, seeing as the galaxies needed more mass to account for their motions.

[Mike C]

By the way, this part is wrong too:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Science

That translates into .000000656 meters or 6.56^-10 nanometers.

 

The exponent -7 means you move the decimal to the left by 7 integrals.

So 6 zeros and the 6 add up to 7 figures.

 

So how is that wrong?

 

Likewise with the exponent -10.

You move the decimal to the left by 10 integrals. That adds up to 9 zeros plus the 6.

 

I still cannot understand where you get that 1913 figure.

 

Where I used an exponent with the minus sign eliminated was an error.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

The exponent -7 means you move the decimal to the left by 7 integrals.

So 6 zeros and the 6 add up to 7 figures.

 

So how is that wrong?

 

Because thats not actually how an exponent works. 6^2 means 6*6. 6^3 means 6*6*6. Now, for powers of 10 we can think in terms of moving the decimal. 10^2 is 100. 10^3 is 1000. Etc.

 

In your case, you don't mean 6,56^-10, what you mean is 6.56*10^(-10).

-Will

[CraigD]

I quoted above that the wavelength of redlight radiated by the hydrogen atom is 6.56^7 meters. That translates into .000000656 meters or 6.56^-10 nanometers.

I think I was pretty clear in that you are not expressing the scientific notation correctly.

 

Above, you've stated 6.56 to the seventh power.

Previously, you stated 6.56 to the negative seventh power. This is the one I corrected for you.

 

What you mean to say is 6.56 times ten to the negative seventh power.

 

Big difference.

6.56m to the negative seventh power equals 1913nm.

The exponent -7 means you move the decimal to the left by 7 integrals.

So 6 zeros and the 6 add up to 7 figures.

 

So how is that wrong?

 

Likewise with the exponent -10.

You move the decimal to the left by 10 integrals. That adds up to 9 zeros plus the 6.

A silly squabble over units, notation, and arithmetic seems to be occurring in these posts.

 

As the link InfiniteNow gave, this wikipedia article, and countless other sources document, the wavelength of visible light commonly called “red” is about 625 to 740 nm. “nm” is the standard abbreviation for “nanometer”, meaning [math]10^{-9}[/math], [math]\frac{1}{1,000,000,000}[/math], or 0.000000001 meters. 656 nm would, therefore, be written using standard scientific numeric notation as [math]6.56 \times 10^{-7} \, \mbox{m}[/math] or 6.56e-7 m, NOT [math]6.56^{-7}[/math], [math]6.56 \times e^{-7}[/math], or other typographical manglings of the notation.

I still cannot understand where you get that 1913 figure.

[math]6.56^{-7} \dot= 1.912 \times 10^{-6}[/math]. I don’t think this calculation of the value of an incorrectly written expression is important to the discussion.

 

InfiniteNow is arguing, I think, that, evidenced by his tendency to make notational errors, New Science lacks a good grasp of arithmetic and numeric notations. Although I’m inclined to agree, I don’t believe NS’s grasp of arithmetic has any significance on the physical phenomena being discussed – though it does cause the reader to be skeptical of NS’s claims of scientific expertise.

 

Important theoretical issues exist concerning photon emission. The n=3 to n=2 (Balmer series) transition of the hydrogen atom emits a photon of exact wavelength of about 656.3 nm. The wavelength is exact – photons emitted by this transition all have exactly the same wavelength. Our measurement of it is approximate. There are many other distinct emission spectra of the hydrogen and other atoms within and exceeding on the red and blue end the visible spectum. The key feature of emission and absorption spectra is that the transitions that produce them involve changes of an electron’s principle quantum number, which is always an integer. Although early (pre 20th century), classical models of the atom permitted electrons to orbit nuclei at any distance, current, quantum models do not - there is no such thing as a n=5.3 to n=2.5 electron transition.

 

From this post and others by New Science, I get the impression that he does not understand and/or accept the quantum model of electron orbits, viewing them as exactly analogous to the orbits or charged macroscopit bodies. To my knowledge, however, without quantum mechanic’s requirement that electrons can only occupy orbits that have circumferences that are even multiples of the electrons’ quantum wavelength, no explanation exists that can explain the observed emission and absorption spectra of any atoms.

[InfiniteNow]

A silly squabble over units, notation, and arithmetic seems to be occurring in these posts.

<...>

InfiniteNow is arguing, I think, that, evidenced by his tendency to make notational errors, New Science lacks a good grasp of arithmetic and numeric notations. Although I’m inclined to agree, I don’t believe NS’s grasp of arithmetic has any significance on the physical phenomena being discussed

Yeah Craig... That's exactly what my math teacher used to tell me. "I'll give you an A. No worries. What you wrote is completely and absolutely wrong. It bears no semblance to reality, but since your going into a different class in five minutes when the bell rings, I won't mark up your submission with my red pen."

 

:hihi::doh:;)

 

 

Craig, I think you're one hell of a guy, I really do, but seriously man, this post here just counters all that is holy on Hypography.

 

The troll comment is further reinforced because here we are not discussing the thread topic yet again. :)

[Qfwfq]

Well, let's calm down and stop feeding the trolls. :phones:

[Mike C]

Erasmus and Infinite

 

I do not expess the educated way these exponents are written because I expect the reader to understand what I say.

 

I leave the x10 out because my calculater does not include it.

Instead, it has the 'double EE' button that automatically denotes the 'powers of 10' exponent.

With my calculater, to write 7,000,000 (7 million), I push 7 EE 6. The EE stands for 'powers' of 10.

If I add the x10 before the EE, this adds a zero that I do not need, otherwise I would have to post the EE as 5 rather than 6 that is confusing.

 

Erasmus used an asterisk or a small e can be substituted for the calculaters EE.

 

However, these very large figures are always assumed to be applied as 'power of 10'.

 

Anyway, my posts are based on 'truth' in science or any other subject matter.

If I did everything according to the establishments teachings, I would be promoting everything they teach like the BBU, cause of solar eruptions and sunspots (magnetic energies) mass/energy formula, and GR.

This, I cannot do.

 

NS

[Mike C]

From this post and others by New Science, I get the impression that he does not understand and/or accept the quantum model of electron orbits, viewing them as exactly analogous to the orbits or charged macroscopit bodies. To my knowledge, however, without quantum mechanic’s requirement that electrons can only occupy orbits that have circumferences that are even multiples of the electrons’ quantum wavelength, no explanation exists that can explain the observed emission and absorption spectra of any atoms.

 

I accept the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom (HA) that is based on Quantum physics. I explained the nature of photon emission by 'visualization' that is more ibformative.

When it comes to cosmology, that is all that is needed.

 

Any other math resulting from quantum physics is irrelavent to cosmology, such as the Schroedinger equations and orbitals.

These apply to the more complex elements and molecules.

 

Nuff said

 

NS

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Exactly what is the point that you are trying to make ?? Please be more specific ...

I wasn't going to follow this discussion any more but, I thought my statement was pretty clear. Contradictions in this thread seem to be fairly common. The concept of time is the catch 22 of the whole thing and it's a questionable concept. I am of the opinion that time, as a separate entity doesn't exist. So, any discussion that uses time will have inherent problems with it, especially if time is assumed to actually be a player, like a photon.

Consider the statement that a photon is everywhere at once. I read that in one of the earlier posts. Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem likely in my world view. If it were true, then all photons are essentially in the same place at the same time all the time.

It is much more likely that something is seriously wrong with at least one of the concepts in the discussion. Basically, the ship is sinking.

Further, it doesn't surprise me that the discussion has degraded into talking about black holes and whether or not they exist. Black holes (as supermassive gravity wells), dark matter, time travel are just some of the rattlesnakes I mentioned earlier. Scientists are still trying to find gravity waves for cripes sake. Every indication says they don't exist but still they search......

I am a fan of Harry Potter, but not in this context.