When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[IanC]

well wirebender, it seems like my version of virtual photons conforms to standard definition whereas yours does not encompass everything. care to admit that you were not correct?

Admit that I am wrong over a wiki article? Laughing at you ian. Laughing at you.

I have already given you info on virtual photons from an actual physics text and you respond with wiki? Laughing......

you were the first to link to the wiki site.

 

[wirebender]

reactive sources like electric or magnetic fields are dependant on the shape and strength of the fields interacting and are mediated by both real and virtual photons that determine the amount and direction of the force transfered. electromagnetic field strengths can be calculated but you cant see free photons because they are only real when they transfer energy.

And not necessarily even then ian. The days of the photon are numbered. It was some pretty crappy science that simply declared that they exist and an even crappier string of science that maintains the fantasy.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? you call everything an EM field without defining anything.

Wow ian, if you need to have an EM field defined for you, than you really are down there in the gutter with konradv and rocks. Here:

electromagnetic radiation
Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves. A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon

The IR radiated from the surface of the earth is EM radiation. The emission of every so called greehouse gas is electromagnetic radiation. You have been given all of these definitons before but as usual, you fail to grasp what they mean because they don't jibe with your notion of how the universe works.

if it is a radiative field (light source) then the photon density diminishes according to 1/(distance squared). no photons disappear unless you put a particle of matter in the path to measure it. if you are talking about interference between two radiative fields with photons able to constructively or destructively interact with each other, then if you measure at the point of interaction with a bit of matter you will see the interference. otherwise the photons will pass by each other as if nothing had happened.

So explain destructive interference wherein the magnitude of an EM field is reduced without diminishing the number of photons.

r

adiative photons are always real and carry away energy whether they are absorbed later or not.

Actually ian, the existence of photons is questionable. The fact that you speak of them as if they were fact is somewhat humorous. Photons were declared to exist without any sort of actual proof of their existence. They were just a convenent explanation for some restricted thinking on the nature of waves.

wirebender- you seem to have the properties of the two all muddled up in your head which leads to massive confusion.

Actually ian, it is you who is muddled but alas, that is just how things are.

as an interesting aside, one of the many unusual experimental result dealing with photons was found using magnets to polarize a light source. it was found that if the magnet was close to the light source the light polarized, if the magnet was close to the detector the light was polarized, but if the magnet was in the middle away from the light source and detector, then the light was not polarized. in some way the polarization was matter mediated. without matter photons are neither created or destroyed.

And you don't think that phenomenon could be observed if light were a wave and not particles?

 

[IanC]

reactive sources like electric or magnetic fields are dependant on the shape and strength of the fields interacting and are mediated by both real and virtual photons that determine the amount and direction of the force transfered. electromagnetic field strengths can be calculated but you cant see free photons because they are only real when they transfer energy.

And not necessarily even then ian. The days of the photon are numbered. It was some pretty crappy science that simply declared that they exist and an even crappier string of science that maintains the fantasy.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? you call everything an EM field without defining anything.

Wow ian, if you need to have an EM field defined for you, than you really are down there in the gutter with konradv and rocks. Here:

electromagnetic radiation
Energy in the form of transverse magnetic and electric waves. In a vacuum, these waves travel at the speed of light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation). The acceleration of electric charges (such as alternating current in a radio transmitter) gives rise to electromagnetic radiation. Other common examples of electromagnetic radiation are x-rays, microwaves, and radio waves. A single unit, or quantum, of electromagnetic radiation is called a photon

The IR radiated from the surface of the earth is EM radiation. The emission of every so called greehouse gas is electromagnetic radiation. You have been given all of these definitons before but as usual, you fail to grasp what they mean because they don't jibe with your notion of how the universe works.




So explain destructive interference wherein the magnitude of an EM field is reduced without diminishing the number of photons.

r

Actually ian, the existence of photons is questionable. The fact that you speak of them as if they were fact is somewhat humorous. Photons were declared to exist without any sort of actual proof of their existence. They were just a convenent explanation for some restricted thinking on the nature of waves.

wirebender- you seem to have the properties of the two all muddled up in your head which leads to massive confusion.

Actually ian, it is you who is muddled but alas, that is just how things are.

as an interesting aside, one of the many unusual experimental result dealing with photons was found using magnets to polarize a light source. it was found that if the magnet was close to the light source the light polarized, if the magnet was close to the detector the light was polarized, but if the magnet was in the middle away from the light source and detector, then the light was not polarized. in some way the polarization was matter mediated. without matter photons are neither created or destroyed.

And you don't think that phenomenon could be observed if light were a wave and not particles?

who said photons were particles or waves? they have the properties of both which I presume means they are neither. I love talking about physics but you have all the attributes of a conspiracy theorist and I have come to the conclusion (again, but I always hope you will be reasonable) that is is futile to argue with you because you refuse to do anything but insult people and act like you have some special secret knowledge that no one else is privy to.

 

[wirebender]

who said photons were particles or waves? they have the properties of both which I presume means they are neither.

Who said? I see that history isn't your thing either. No less that Einstein himself said that light was particles. Of course, he couldn't square certain properties of light with the reality of particles and a limited understanding of the properties of waves at the time, so physics simply declared that light was both wave and particle and declared wave particle duality rather than simply admit that at the time, it didn't know.

Late in his life, in his writings, Einstein said about his hypothesis that light was particle in nature:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951

Highest among the many problems that Einstein had with the idea of light as particles (he never said that light was wave and particle by the way, that was a declaration of physics as a field) were the following:

• The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

• Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

• Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

• A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path

Rather than admit that it was stymied, physics simply stated that photons had no mass even though Einstein's own math said that they must have mass.

I love talking about physics

No, you love talking about what you think you know about physics. You become quite
bellicose as soon as what you believe you know runs afoul of physical laws.

but you have all the attributes of a conspiracy theorist and I have come to the conclusion (again, but I always hope you will be reasonable) that is is futile to argue with you because you refuse to do anything but insult people and act like you have some special secret knowledge that no one else is privy to.

You frequently call names and suggest that I have mental problems, but all I can do is insult? Add hypocricy to your growing list of less than honest attributes.

As to conspiracy theory, once more, I am laughing in your face. Since no actual evidence exists that photons exist much less as anything like particles, and yet, the field of physics accepts that they not only exist, but are matter with no mass and also waves, who is part of a conspiracy?

It is precisely that sort being right at all cost attitude that kept plate tectonics outside the mainstream for so long and kept the existence of quasicrystals only in the realm of nutty professors for so long, and a hundred other examples of putting one's personal investiment in an idea over an actual search for the truth.

So again, can you explain destructive interference wherein the magnitude of an EM field is reduced without diminishing the number of photons?

Of course you can't so you simply dodge the question rather than actually face that what you believe you know doesn't square with reality.

 

[IanC]

who said photons were particles or waves? they have the properties of both which I presume means they are neither.

Who said? I see that history isn't your thing either. No less that Einstein himself said that light was particles. Of course, he couldn't square certain properties of light with the reality of particles and a limited understanding of the properties of waves at the time, so physics simply declared that light was both wave and particle and declared wave particle duality rather than simply admit that at the time, it didn't know.

Late in his life, in his writings, Einstein said about his hypothesis that light was particle in nature:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951

Highest among the many problems that Einstein had with the idea of light as particles (he never said that light was wave and particle by the way, that was a declaration of physics as a field) were the following:

• The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

• Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

• Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

• A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path

Rather than admit that it was stymied, physics simply stated that photons had no mass even though Einstein's own math said that they must have mass.

I love talking about physics

No, you love talking about what you think you know about physics. You become quite
bellicose as soon as what you believe you know runs afoul of physical laws.

but you have all the attributes of a conspiracy theorist and I have come to the conclusion (again, but I always hope you will be reasonable) that is is futile to argue with you because you refuse to do anything but insult people and act like you have some special secret knowledge that no one else is privy to.

You frequently call names and suggest that I have mental problems, but all I can do is insult? Add hypocricy to your growing list of less than honest attributes.

As to conspiracy theory, once more, I am laughing in your face. Since no actual evidence exists that photons exist much less as anything like particles, and yet, the field of physics accepts that they not only exist, but are matter with no mass and also waves, who is part of a conspiracy?

It is precisely that sort being right at all cost attitude that kept plate tectonics outside the mainstream for so long and kept the existence of quasicrystals only in the realm of nutty professors for so long, and a hundred other examples of putting one's personal investiment in an idea over an actual search for the truth.

So again, can you explain destructive interference wherein the magnitude of an EM field is reduced without diminishing the number of photons?

Of course you can't so you simply dodge the question rather than actually face that what you believe you know doesn't square with reality.

constructive and destructive interference? we have been over this many times before. it depends on the position of the detector (made of matter). at one position it can show an effect from zero to two times the magnitude. change the position or the phase in the photon stream and you get a different value. if you dont measure then the photons simply pass by each other unaffected. what is your understanding of interference?

 

[wirebender]

constructive and destructive interference? we have been over this many times before. it depends on the position of the detector (made of matter). at one position it can show an effect from zero to two times the magnitude. change the position or the phase in the photon stream and you get a different value. if you dont measure then the photons simply pass by each other unaffected. what is your understanding of interference?

Geez ian, you just get further and further away from the topic. You are clearly talking about destructive interference in the visible spectrum.

And yes, we have been over it many times before and you still don't seem to get it. Do you think changing the positon of the detector might result in results on a different......get ready for it...... VECTOR? Now which vector might exist from which the EM field of the earth is not radiating?

Now once again, explain how destructive interference can cause an EM field to be diminished or completely cancelled out without reducing the number of "photons" in the field.

 

[IanC]

constructive and destructive interference? we have been over this many times before. it depends on the position of the detector (made of matter). at one position it can show an effect from zero to two times the magnitude. change the position or the phase in the photon stream and you get a different value. if you dont measure then the photons simply pass by each other unaffected. what is your understanding of interference?

Geez ian, you just get further and further away from the topic. You are clearly talking about destructive interference in the visible spectrum.

And yes, we have been over it many times before and you still don't seem to get it. Do you think changing the positon of the detector might result in results on a different......get ready for it...... VECTOR? Now which vector might exist from which the EM field of the earth is not radiating?

Now once again, explain how destructive interference can cause an EM field to be diminished or completely cancelled out without reducing the number of "photons" in the field.

waves interfere with each other. light waves interfere with each other if you measure them because matter is present in the form of the measuring device. from the diagram you can easily see that the magnitude can go from zero to 2x depending on the phase difference. in all cases there are the same amount of waves or photons, which simply pass by each other with no exchange of energy if they do not interact with matter.

you bring up the word 'vector' as if it some magic talisman that can deflect logic. what kind of EM field from the earth are you talking about? a radiative field that expels energy in the form of real photons? in that case only a small fraction of the possible vectors moving away from earth in space and time are populated with an actual photon. if you are talking about a reactive field (magnetic or electric) then all vectors are populated with virtual photons that only become real when they encounter a particle of matter that can interact with the field. radiative fields are paid for up front, reactive fields are cash on delivery.

why dont you explain in your own words where and how you think photons are blinking out of existence?

 

[wirebender]

waves interfere with each other. light waves interfere with each other if you measure them because matter is present in the form of the measuring device. from the diagram you can easily see that the magnitude can go from zero to 2x depending on the phase difference. in all cases there are the same amount of waves or photons, which simply pass by each other with no exchange of energy if they do not interact with matter.

Ian, you can measure the decrease in field magnitude resulting from destructive interference. Explain where the "photons" that made up the field went when the magnitude of the field decreased.

radiative field that expels energy in the form of real photons?

Real photons? As opposed to imaginary photons? Tell you what ian, show me proof that photons exist.

why dont you explain in your own words where and how you think photons are blinking out of existence?

Already have ian, repeatedly. Feel free to refer to one of the many times I have explained it to you before. Asking over and over isn't going to change the answer.

By the way, you didn't explain partial reflection if light is particle in nature. Any ideas?

 

[IanC]

waves interfere with each other. light waves interfere with each other if you measure them because matter is present in the form of the measuring device. from the diagram you can easily see that the magnitude can go from zero to 2x depending on the phase difference. in all cases there are the same amount of waves or photons, which simply pass by each other with no exchange of energy if they do not interact with matter.

Ian, you can measure the decrease in field magnitude resulting from destructive interference. Explain where the "photons" that made up the field went when the magnitude of the field decreased.

radiative field that expels energy in the form of real photons?

Real photons? As opposed to imaginary photons? Tell you what ian, show me proof that photons exist.

why dont you explain in your own words where and how you think photons are blinking out of existence?

Already have ian, repeatedly. Feel free to refer to one of the many times I have explained it to you before. Asking over and over isn't going to change the answer.

By the way, you didn't explain partial reflection if light is particle in nature. Any ideas?

the photons are elsewhere. dont you understand waves? if you measure at a point where the photons are not then that means they are somewhere else. surely you have seen the two slit experiment enough times to understand that the probabilities are different at different positions.

the term is 'virtual photons' not imaginary photons. asking for proof that photons exist seems a little desparate on your part. try going outside on a sunny day. that heat you feel on your face is photons from the sun. or perhaps you are just trying to duck the issue by arguing definitions.

speaking of ducking issues, I see you refuse to answer the question of how you explain the mechanism of photons blinking out of existence. a simple link to one of your past answers would be best. you repeatedly refer back to something that doesnt seem to exist. I think you are a blowhard that is blustering to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that you have no explanation. prove me wrong.

 

[IanC]

oh, and partial reflection? why are you making a strawman by saying that I think photons are particles?

I believe my statement was that photons have the properties of both waves and particles therefore they are neither.

photons go from electric to magnetic, therefore the phase and orientation can make a difference between whether they are absorbed, reflected or transmitted

 

[IanC]

Im sorry I couldnt find the image I was looking for, which showed how the orientation and magnitude of the magnetic and electric field of the photon affecting the interaction with the atom

 

[Dante]

how do people deny in the face of so much scientific evidence, climate change, or the earth warming, or even the most likely cause of much -- human-induced change?

please, stop ignorance .. help a conservative