A Photon's Perspective on Life

EM photons travel at the speed of light, c, from the moment of their creation, to the moment of their extinction.  From the perspective of a photon, time does not pass.  You could even say that to a photon, time does not exist.  So there is nothing to distinguish the photon's creation from its extinction, or any other point along its path.  

From the perspective of a light photon, it exists at all points along its path simultaneously as well as the creation and extinction being indistinguishable.  In fact, the concept of "simultaneity" has no meaning from the perspective of a photon.  

It rather hurts to think about.  

These thoughts came from thinking about how curved space makes a photon curve.  The images of a sheet warped in three dimensions showing the path of a photon, has never been clear to me, because it is warped in a their dimension which is not realistic.  I wish they would simply draw it as a plane.  But then the lines bend toward the large mass and back out again, not showing the path of any object of photon.  

BTW, anyone know why Bosons do not have antiparticles?  I didn't realize that until now. 

-- 

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+11, Ricky wrote:
> EM photons travel at the speed of light, c, from the moment of their creation, to the moment of their extinction. From the perspective of a photon, time does not pass. You could even say that to a photon, time does not exist. So there is nothing to distinguish the photon's creation from its extinction, or any other point along its path. 
> 
> From the perspective of a light photon, it exists at all points along its path simultaneously as well as the creation and extinction being indistinguishable. In fact, the concept of "simultaneity" has no meaning from the perspective of a photon. 
> 
> It rather hurts to think about. 
> 
> These thoughts came from thinking about how curved space makes a photon curve. The images of a sheet warped in three dimensions showing the path of a photon, has never been clear to me, because it is warped in a their dimension which is not realistic. I wish they would simply draw it as a plane. But then the lines bend toward the large mass and back out again, not showing the path of any object of photon. 
> 
> BTW, anyone know why Bosons do not have antiparticles? I didn't realize that until now. 

Antiprotons and antineutrons exist - though they annihilate when they hit normal hadrons - but they can be put together to make bosons.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:01:19 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<9dad0255-4928-4e42-b616-9a45eeb1546fn@googlegroups.com>:

>EM photons travel at the speed of light, c, from the moment of their creation,
>to the moment of their extinction.  From the perspective of a photon, time
>does not pass.  You could even say that to a photon, time does not exist.
> So there is nothing to distinguish the photon's creation from its extinction,
>or any other point along its path. 

A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon'
At that time many objected to his idea.
'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct
HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.
It is as bad as epicycles were before they _admitted_ earth and other planets orbited the sun.
In MY view LOl, and since it seems to have been shown that gravity propagates at the speed of light,
the Le Sage theory provides a MECHANISM
*This is important, because electrickety without electrons makes no sense
starting at explaining the vacuum diode

So I think (well hehe) that EM radiation may just be a state of the Le Sage particle.
If you think all that through you can see and actually predict a lot of nature.
Maybe some generations are needed to get rid of the Albert E. parroting epicycles kwantuumers.
 
In a PMT we cry 'photon detected' when an electron is kicked lose from an atom
and then hits the dynode  causing to emit more and more at every dynode.
But it is, if you look at the electron in orbit around an atom,
 like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in the water,
We cry 'electron' at the point where so much energy is applied by the waves that the wire breaks 
But the water molecules are orders of magnitude smaller... and have their own laws..
in the same way Le Sage type particles are real particles like water molecules.
Einstein was a failure uniting graffiti :-) with the other forces of nature and caused idiot 
adventures and his songs are almost a dogma worse than the church and earth at the center.

So...
Maybe I am wrong, but then again we aliens are not supposed to help OK forget it.

For observations:
 If Le Sage particles exist and originate in processes in stars then the universe will push itself apart (seems to be the case);
If Le Sage particles exist then heavenly bodies should heat up (see Pluto for example).
If Le Sage particles exist then there is a maximum to gravity (all particles intercepted) and the black hole singularity crap is solved.
If Le Sage particles are a carrier of EM radiation then gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been confirmed).
Forget all the crap about jumping in the future by going faster etc...
Mamaticians always like to do a divide by zero and like to work with equations that are an incomplete description of reality
and then sell their crap as the ultimate truth,, String theory comes to mind.
If Le Sage particle exist you will see that the pendulum moves slower where there are less (because intercepted by some object
like on the earth surface), and matter is less compressed, the pendulum becomes longer, 'time is slower in a gravity well' this is observed 
There are many more things that can be explained that way
It is relatively simple to make predictions from Le Sage theory and do some experiments to verify those.

So I stick to that Le Sage mechanism until I see something better 'if there is something better,'
Without a mechanism advancement is dead. Like Albert E. is!

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' 
> At that time many objected to his idea. 
> 'photon' is just a mathematical construct. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 
> 
> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct 
> HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM. 

There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon  interaction with matter
to add or take away ONE unit of angular  momentum.   If 'a photon' were just
an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of
spin into the electromagnetic field.

Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron.

But, that doesn't happen.    The EM field has to be quantized  into spinny bits or
the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow.
Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it
isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: 
> 
> > A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' 
> > At that time many objected to his idea. 
> > 'photon' is just a mathematical construct. 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 
> > 
> > Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct 
> > HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.
> There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon interaction with matter 
> to add or take away ONE unit of angular momentum. If 'a photon' were just 
> an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of 
> spin into the electromagnetic field. 
> 
> Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron. 
> 
> But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into spinny bits or 
> the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow. 
> Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it 
> isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

You don't need to get that specialized to show photons of light must exist.  But the Jan Man is never going to accept any of it.  He's been seasoning his mushrooms with Le Sage and marjoram.   Hmmm... that's making me hungry.  

The irony is that while Jan Man is negging on Einstein for his paper on the photo-electric effect, that is actually what earned a Nobel prize for, in spite of his work on relativity.  It's especially ironic that Jan Man is complaining that Einstein didn't need to conjure up an artificial mechanism, such as the æther or Le Sage spices. 

-- 

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Oct 2022 18:09:25 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<4811f5c4-8831-428c-9d40-7962c9b18ed4n@googlegroups.com>:

>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' 
>> At that time many objected to his idea. 
>> 'photon' is just a mathematical construct. 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 
>> 
>> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct 
>> HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM. 
>
>There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon  interaction with matter
>to add or take away ONE unit of angular  momentum.   If 'a photon' were just
>an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of
>spin into the electromagnetic field.
>
>Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron.
>
>But, that doesn't happen.    The EM field has to be quantized  into spinny bits or
>the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow.
>Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it
>isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

If EM waves are a state of Le Sage particles then always there is interaction with matter.
That idea predicts it from basics.
But at a much finer (smaller) level.
The quantization is at the size of Le Sage particles.
Photon is just related to electron charge. Even Planck pointed out that
we should not take his constant as a basic thing.

The HOLE of atomic fishsicks is what job creation at CERN is all about.
God particle, theory of everything, every few years a new song.
Nothing really useful to show for it.
Einstein was a failure

parrotting ..... no end .... understanding?
You humming beans.. so silly

Alien

On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 4:23:41 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Oct 2022 18:09:25 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd 
> <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in 
> <4811f5c4-8831-428c...@googlegroups.com>:
> >On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: 
> > 
> >> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' 
> >> At that time many objected to his idea. 
> >> 'photon' is just a mathematical construct. 
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 
> >> 
> >> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct 
> >> HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM. 
> > 
> >There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon interaction with matter 
> >to add or take away ONE unit of angular momentum. If 'a photon' were just 
> >an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of 
> >spin into the electromagnetic field. 
> > 
> >Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron. 
> > 
> >But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into spinny bits or 
> >the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow. 
> >Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it 
> >isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.
>
> If EM waves are a state of Le Sage particles then always there is interaction with matter. 
> That idea predicts it from basics. 
> But at a much finer (smaller) level. 

Sad that it doesn't work.

> The quantization is at the size of Le Sage particles. 

> Photon is just related to electron charge. 

How?

> Even Planck pointed out that  we should not take his constant as a basic thing. 

Max Planck was pretty cautious when he first spelled out the idea. He didn't bother to send Einsteins paper out for peer review when he got it, which suggests that he quite liked the paper.

> The HOLE of atomic fishsicks is what job creation at CERN is all about. 
> God particle, theory of everything, every few years a new song. 

Not exactly.

> Nothing really useful to show for it. 

The last time physics got really useful it gave us atomic bombs. The Josephson junction eventually gave us a really stable voltage reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_voltage_standard

CERN doesn't look like being that useful any time soon, but I'm comfortable with that. Jan Panteltje's grasp of what might be useful is illustrated by his enthusiasm for the Le Sage theory of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

> Einstein was a failure.

In not finding the theory of everything? The rest of us are less ambitious.

> parrotting ..... no end .... understanding? 
> You humming beans.. so silly 

Jan Panteltje parrots a lot of stuff he doesn't understand. If he were human, he might be silly. As it is, he's just irrelevant.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 06/10/2022 02:50, Ricky wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' At that time many
>>> objected to his idea. 'photon' is just a mathematical construct. 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
>>> 
>>> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct HE PROVIDES
>>> NO MECHANISM.
>> There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon
>> interaction with matter to add or take away ONE unit of angular
>> momentum. If 'a photon' were just an abstraction, that rule would
>> make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of spin into the
>> electromagnetic field.
>> 
>> Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an
>> electron.
>> 
>> But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into
>> spinny bits or the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated
>> somehow. Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our
>> experiments with light quanta; it isn't lacking, it's called
>> 'photon'.
> 
> You don't need to get that specialized to show photons of light must
> exist.  But the Jan Man is never going to accept any of it.  He's
> been seasoning his mushrooms with Le Sage and marjoram.   Hmmm...
> that's making me hungry.

It is quite possible though that the photon wave duality that we teach 
at university now is just a weak field limiting version of a more 
complete and complicated theory that we just haven't found yet.

That is a theory as far beyond what we have now as present quantum 
theory is above the original Rutherford-Bohr quantisation model and the 
empirical Rydberg formulae that their model was first able to explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

Breakthroughs in theoretical physics tend to occur with novel 
mathematics - string theory held promise for a while but I suspect 
Clifford algebras and Conway's spinors may eventually win the day.

Only time will tell - it will be obvious once someone makes the next 
breakthrough that it will all make more sense (at least to physicists).

> The irony is that while Jan Man is negging on Einstein for his paper
> on the photo-electric effect, that is actually what earned a Nobel
> prize for, in spite of his work on relativity.  It's especially
> ironic that Jan Man is complaining that Einstein didn't need to
> conjure up an artificial mechanism, such as the æther or Le Sage
> spices.

Quantisation of energy vs time is a bit funny though.

They are a conjugate pair in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle just 
like with position and momentum.

I always found it a bit odd thinking about photons (dish to dish 
correlations) at radio frequencies. The mathematics is identical to 
visible light but to have a well defined frequency you *must* have a 
certain number of wavelengths in your photon wave packet. The lengths of 
narrowband photons do get a bit silly at 1m (30MHz) wavelength.

After all we could choose the receiver bandwidth at reception time but 
each photon was emitted from the source billions of years ago. I came to 
the conclusion that thinking about photons in the RF band was unhelpful.

The tension between a specific defined frequency of photon and the 
extent of the wavetrain in spacetime to support it remains though.

Ultra-short laser pulses now have FWHM of around 0.5THz.

https://www.rp-photonics.com/ultrashort_pulses.html

And they are getting ever shorter with cunning mode-locked laser 
designs. I presume one of the thing JL's company facilitate.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2022-10-06 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
[Snip!]
> I always found it a bit odd thinking about photons (dish to dish
> correlations) at radio frequencies. The mathematics is identical to
> visible light but to have a well defined frequency you *must* have a
> certain number of wavelengths in your photon wave packet. The lengths
> of narrowband photons do get a bit silly at 1m (30MHz) wavelength.
>
> After all we could choose the receiver bandwidth at reception time
> but each photon was emitted from the source billions of years ago. I
> came to the conclusion that thinking about photons in the RF band was
> unhelpful.
>
> The tension between a specific defined frequency of photon and the
> extent of the wavetrain in spacetime to support it remains though.
>
> [...]

The problem stems from the idea of a photon as a particle that
travels from a source to a detector. That leads to all sorts of
weird ideas and paradoxes. All these problems vanish if you
think of a photon as an interaction between matter and waves.
Such interactions are naturally quantized because *matter* is
quantized. Waves, or more generally fields, need not be.

Of course, we have no way to directly observe the continuity
of waves, because all our detectors rely on interactions with
matter.

Jeroen Belleman

P.S. At 30MHz, the wavelength is 10m.

On 06/10/2022 12:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> 
> P.S. At 30MHz, the wavelength is 10m.

Fence post error in my mental arithmetic - I usually observed in the 
radar bands between 2.7GHz and 31GHz.

Most impressive image I ever made was VLA Cass A epoch 1984 at 5GHz 
(6cm). It was the longest observing time spent on a single object.
(there is now a movie of it expanding of which that is the first frame)

https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a

I don't like the official stock image though - too soot and whitewash 
for my taste it has lost all the intricate nebulosity inside. The raw 
image was originally made at 2048 square which was right at the limits 
of what was possible on the AIPS hardware at the time.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown