Light isn't a particle
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 23:01 On May 20, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On May 20, 3:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> >On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > >> >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> >> >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > >> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch > > >> >> >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > >> >> >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > >> >> >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > >> >> >wave? > > >> >> The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > >> >> p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > >> >Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > >> Observe matter with relatively low momentum atoms. Bombard it with > >> photons energetic enough to knock an electron loose. > >The only posszibility here is for absorption of light that would cause > >a quantum jump; sorry but nothing knocks an electron > > I'm talking about a photon powerful enough to knock the electron free of > the atom. (google "photoelectric effect" for details) Absorbing light is the only explanation for an electron comming out of an atom. Mitch Raemsch > > >Everyone is deluded > > Everyone except yourself. Right. > > >> Calculate the > >> momentum of the electron and resulting ion. Subtract the initial momentum > >> (~0). By conservation of momentum, the difference had to come from > >> somewhere... the photon. Compare this value with that predicted by > >> p = hf/c. > > >> Bubble chamber photos would be good, gamma + H --> e- + p+. > >We don't know what we are looking at. > > You mean _you_ don't know what you are looking at. > > Look at this one for details: > > http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2001/bubblechambers/gl... > > Raw picture on page 3, highlighted on page 4, details on following pages. > All the "B" curls are electrons knocked free by gamma rays. Note that > they moved and thus had momentum. Where did they get it from? Momentum > from the gamma. > > Also P and Q are interesting. P is a positron that annihilates with an > electron forming gammas. Where did its momentum go? One of the gammas > materialized into an electron/positron pair at Q. Both were moving and > thus had momentum. Where did it come from? The gamma. Same for the > "C" e+e- pairs formed from gammas. > > Also read the "Positron.electron annihilation to one photon is impossible" > section starting on the 7th page, as it discusses the momentum of photons..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 20 May 2010 23:57 BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> writes: >On May 20, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> I'm talking about a photon powerful enough to knock the electron free of >> the atom. (google "photoelectric effect" for details) >Absorbing light is the only explanation for an electron comming out of >an atom. Well, yes, and when it does so, the electron/ion have net momentum. Where did it come from? The photon.
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 00:00 On May 20, 8:57 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On May 20, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> I'm talking about a photon powerful enough to knock the electron free of > >> the atom. (google "photoelectric effect" for details) > >Absorbing light is the only explanation for an electron comming out of > >an atom. > > Well, yes, and when it does so, the electron/ion have net momentum. Where > did it come from? The photon. No it has jump speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: Michael Moroney on 21 May 2010 10:33 BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> writes: >On May 20, 8:57 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >Absorbing light is the only explanation for an electron comming out of >> >an atom. >> >> Well, yes, and when it does so, the electron/ion have net momentum. Where >> did it come from? The photon. >No it has jump speed. What the hell is "jump speed"? Something you just made up? Anyway, where did the momentum of the electron and ion come from? Remember, momentum is always conserved.
From: PD on 21 May 2010 11:16
On May 20, 5:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 5:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 4:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 20, 2:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > > >On May 20, 1:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On May 20, 2:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Light is only a wave. It has no momentum like matter. > > > > > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > >> You're Poyntingly wrong. EM waves have momentum density. > > > > > > >I don't think so. They are dual electric and magnetic waves. As such > > > > > > >which wave will the particle be in? the electric wave or the magnetic > > > > > > >wave? > > > > > > > The momentum of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency, > > > > > > p = hf/c. That a photon does carry momentum is easily observable. > > > > > > Please demonstrate how easy the measurement is. > > > > >http://www.jstor.org/pss/79586 > > > > Note this is done 33 years ago. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > You mean 33 years ago they made something up and now you are carrying > > > on with it. > > > No, they measured it. When you *measure* something, then it is really > > happening, whether you understand how it happens or not. > > > > If not then answer the question which wave the particle is in? > > > Is it in the electric wave or is it in the magnetic? > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You think science has understanding when it cannot even measure > accurately and won't admit it. I'm sorry, but it's the other way around. Science can measure things with very high accuracy, but you won't admit that it can. You discount other people's accomplishments. You don't like accomplishments, because you feel sensitive about your own perceived lack of accomplishment. It's easier to feel better about yourself if you can believe that others really haven't accomplished anything either. And so you refuse to believe that science has measured anything reliably, that they know anything with any certainty, and that they have produced anything of value. > Those measurements are for the future. > Complete theories are for the very distant future. We do not know much > now. > > Mitch Raemsch |