|
Post by jonbain on May 2, 2023 18:37:36 GMT
Most seem to say it has neither charge, which makes no sense if it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here is a good reading for this topic of the photoelectric effect:
And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time.
Any thoughts welcome.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 15, 2023 22:27:20 GMT
MAYA-ELThe problem with your statement is that you are claiming that you thus know what reality is. If you reckon science is 0% reality, then how do you know this? What is your method or process of deciding? Yes, predicting and explaining are not the same, and many 'splanations are sophistic pseudo-science. But your explanation/prediction is somehow better? The simple fact is that prediction implies a certain understanding of the reality (ontology). Air always consisted of at least oxygen and nitrogen, regardless of your wording. Its about being able to reduce the universe to its fundamental structure. And the weapons of war that decide who takes power, operate most efficiently on the periodic table, whatever the panda bear does, or whatever Winnie the Xi decides. A better example is whether it makes sense to put a ski-jump (aka a ramp) on an aircraft-carrier. The Americans, Japanese and French never performed such a faux pas. So i trust their judgement more than I do the Russians, Chinese, Indians and British. Your not thinking outside of your normal framework thats where the problem lies You can't see my point because you are staying within the western mainstream schooling scientific perspective and so you dont understand the point im trying to make here, air fundamentally is not oxygen and nitrogen but it can be reduced down untill you end up with 2 different things that are not air anymore and that is a fundamental truth however science has made this rule where if a person can predict the outcome of an experiment and do so 3 or more times and if they are the first person to do this then so long as it doesn't conflict with previous findings and "laws" of science then they are allowed to say what the reason is or what the new "thing" is and so on and so forth but the truth is that just because that person "discovered" it doesn't mean that they know the what/where/when/and why and so their assertion is no more the truth than the back of a Kellogg's box is the word of God yet society takes it a so And it's ironic because the Sciences very backbone is rooted in the same methods as most religions it's assumptions and Imagination not fact despite it's clever means of Saving Face using facts to hide its imaginary upbringing Like the benzylamine ring and the method we use for drawing compounds ketones and such was invented by a dude that was tripping while staring at a fireplace one night and came up with the fractal pattern that we use today Or the atom which was developed by arguably one to two philosophers that were daydreaming and still to this day we can't see an atom yet the atom has remained the main staple belief in science for hundreds of years and it's structure coincidentally resembling the solar system. But I'm preaching to the choir at this point
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 16, 2023 14:24:36 GMT
MAYA-EL Its funny you call me a 'westerner', because the most west I have been in longitude is London, and only for a few weeks, and have been north of the equator for a total amount of time far less than a season. The inner structure of the atom is not well understood, and it does not need to be to comprehend the periodic table. But certain aspects of it are fundamental. The mistake YOU westerners make is to simply ignore the life-force. And yes, air may be MORE than N2 and O2, but its still made up of those fundamental units. When they start to pretend that organic chemistry is just a more complicated variation of inorganic chemistry, is the slipperiest slope that ever descended into world war.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 16, 2023 16:54:14 GMT
MAYA-EL Its funny you call me a 'westerner', because the most west I have been in longitude is London, and only for a few weeks, and have been north of the equator for a total amount of time far less than a season. The inner structure of the atom is not well understood, and it does not need to be to comprehend the periodic table. But certain aspects of it are fundamental. The mistake YOU westerners make is to simply ignore the life-force. And yes, air may be MORE than N2 and O2, but its still made up of those fundamental units. When they start to pretend that organic chemistry is just a more complicated variation of inorganic chemistry, is the slipperiest slope that ever descended into world war. You are absolutely incapable of viewing things in a different frame then the normal one you use on a daily basis, this makes it almost impossible for there to be even a small chance of learning anything new, i guess neuroplasty doesn't last forever with some people so yet again your completely Miss what my point is and you make this self evident by what you say so never mind im not in the mood to beat a dead horse today
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 16, 2023 20:33:10 GMT
its ironic that the tone of debate above, describes itself
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:45:49 GMT
You mean by being a personal being? Like ego? I don't know so well phenomenology. I still don't understand it completely.
The ego exists as a reflection of the world, it is the observed world, behaving as a singular person.
Phenomenology, is akin to transcendental movements, it dissociates itself from the artificially constructed world-view ego.
Its about constructing reality, rather than being constructed by it, but this is realized by appreciating the extent to which the world
can and does often construct us.
Being is a verb, not a noun, not a static observation, but a dynamic creator of that which becomes observed.
Seeking the ontology within the phenomenon, beyond the experience of being.
But that primal ontology is an eternal dynamic of awareness. Logic itself IS being. There can be no understanding without the person who understands. But that understanding must always necessarily be constructive.
All reflections are extensions of said things which they reflect thus are connect to them. The reflection of me in a mirror observes both the mirror and I being connected through shared forms (i.e. the shape in the mirror and the shape of me both being the same).
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 18, 2023 8:31:07 GMT
The ego exists as a reflection of the world, it is the observed world, behaving as a singular person.
Phenomenology, is akin to transcendental movements, it dissociates itself from the artificially constructed world-view ego.
Its about constructing reality, rather than being constructed by it, but this is realized by appreciating the extent to which the world
can and does often construct us.
Being is a verb, not a noun, not a static observation, but a dynamic creator of that which becomes observed.
Seeking the ontology within the phenomenon, beyond the experience of being.
But that primal ontology is an eternal dynamic of awareness. Logic itself IS being. There can be no understanding without the person who understands. But that understanding must always necessarily be constructive.
All reflections are extensions of said things which they reflect thus are connect to them. The reflection of me in a mirror observes both the mirror and I being connected through shared forms (i.e. the shape in the mirror and the shape of me both being the same). But is it meaningful to conclude the photon has no charge, when it is clear that it displaces the electron?
Moreover, how can it be meaningful for an electromagnetic force have no charge? Does it repel + & - equally, or attract them, or nothing?
If nothing then how can it displace the electron?
We do not need to know about atoms or electrons empirically ourselves, to see that their explanation is impossible as it stands.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:14:20 GMT
All reflections are extensions of said things which they reflect thus are connect to them. The reflection of me in a mirror observes both the mirror and I being connected through shared forms (i.e. the shape in the mirror and the shape of me both being the same). But is it meaningful to conclude the photon has no charge, when it is clear that it displaces the electron?
Moreover, how can it be meaningful for an electromagnetic force have no charge? Does it repel + & - equally, or attract them, or nothing?
If nothing then how can it displace the electron?
We do not need to know about atoms or electrons empirically ourselves, to see that their explanation is impossible as it stands.
I never said that it had a charge or no charge. I merely pointed to the fact that the more we are enveloped in the relative the less peace of mind we have....physics and its emphasis on forms is relative.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on May 31, 2023 20:43:09 GMT
Photons are not charged and have no mass. They are more akin to bosons.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 1, 2023 11:18:29 GMT
Photons are not charged and have no mass. They are more akin to bosons.
So what causes the photon to eject an electron? How can it be part of electromagnetism if it is not in any way magnetic or electric?
Can you PROVE that a boson is anything more than sophistry? Where are boson's evident in any practical experiment that can be meaningfully repeated? IE what proof do you have that they exist beyond the esoteric claims of 'the scientists'?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 1, 2023 11:59:00 GMT
The Compton effect demonstrates easily that photons impart momentum. p=mv momentum = mass x velocity
If the mass is zero, then the momentum must be zero thus the Compton effect proves, not only that photons must have mass, but how to calculate precisely what that mass actually is.
Now there is much sophistry online that pretends somehow that momentum can be imparted without mass.
But in so doing it is contrary to the widely tried and trusted p=mv
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 2, 2023 17:19:14 GMT
The special theory of relativity predicts that photons do not have mass simply because they travel at the speed of light. This is also backed up by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which predicts that photons cannot have mass as a result of U(1) -gauge symmetry.
As for momentum photons do have momentum. In fact, photon momentum is suggested by the photoelectric effect, where photons knock electrons out of a substance.
Each photons momentum is equal to Planck's constant divided by the wavelength of the light. So, plugging the numbers in, that's 6.63 * 10^-34 divided by 4.5 * 10^-7, which is 1.47 * 10^-27 kilogram meters per second.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 2, 2023 18:16:02 GMT
Photons are not charged and have no mass. They are more akin to bosons.
So what causes the photon to eject an electron? How can it be part of electromagnetism if it is not in any way magnetic or electric?
Can you PROVE that a boson is anything more than sophistry? Where are boson's evident in any practical experiment that can be meaningfully repeated? IE what proof do you have that they exist beyond the esoteric claims of 'the scientists'?
Let me say, I do not profess to be a physicist, I am simply an amateur with interest in all things related to physics. I will grant you that since I do not have a particle accelerator, I do have to rely on the expertise of thousands of physicist that have had the benefit of working directly and indirectly with accelerators. Can they be wrong, of course they can be. But, all investigations have to begin somewhere and go through the process of falsification. Since July 4, 2012, when the Higgs boson was discovered, a total of almost 30,000 Higgs bosons have been observed with the Atlas detector. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 2, 2023 21:31:41 GMT
So what causes the photon to eject an electron? How can it be part of electromagnetism if it is not in any way magnetic or electric?
Can you PROVE that a boson is anything more than sophistry? Where are boson's evident in any practical experiment that can be meaningfully repeated? IE what proof do you have that they exist beyond the esoteric claims of 'the scientists'?
Let me say, I do not profess to be a physicist, I am simply an amateur with interest in all things related to physics. I will grant you that since I do not have a particle accelerator, I do have to rely on the expertise of thousands of physicist that have had the benefit of working directly and indirectly with accelerators. Can they be wrong, of course they can be. But, all investigations have to begin somewhere and go through the process of falsification. Since July 4, 2012, when the Higgs boson was discovered, a total of almost 30,000 Higgs bosons have been observed with the Atlas detector. Cheers! I am so glad you are not a physicist, as they would expect me to take it on faith that their very expensive useless claims are real.
Then they would make emotional derisive comments when I prove their theories to be illogical.
You still cannot demonstrate a single use of the alleged 'Higgs boson'. I am not asking for anything profound or perfect, just something substantial beyond the claims and funding of 'academics'.
For example, I have never directly observed a proton or neutron, but i can combine hydrogen and oxygen and get water. So I accept the model of the atom works to a good extent.
My point is that a classical example of pseudoscience is that it has no
actual functional use at all, no matter how trivial.
Their theory also has a fundamental logical flaw. They claim that the higgs boson it is what gives everything mass. And yet they also claim it is hundreds of times more massive than an electron.
You ok with that as being 'logical'?
Now let me offer another example of even more blatant contradictions in their alleged 'science':
Nothing escapes the black-hole even if it moves at light-speed. And this 'proves' that gravity emitted from that black-hole moves at light-speed... (2017 Nobel prize quality ideas)
And you got no problem with that at all? After all, millions of 'scientists' all say this has been 'observed'.
As much an argument from faith, as it an argument from democracy.
Still, nothing logical. Nothing empirical. Just the CLAIM that it is such. Taken on faith.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 4, 2023 22:57:20 GMT
So what causes the photon to eject an electron? How can it be part of electromagnetism if it is not in any way magnetic or electric?
Can you PROVE that a boson is anything more than sophistry? Where are boson's evident in any practical experiment that can be meaningfully repeated? IE what proof do you have that they exist beyond the esoteric claims of 'the scientists'?
Let me say, I do not profess to be a physicist, I am simply an amateur with interest in all things related to physics. I will grant you that since I do not have a particle accelerator, I do have to rely on the expertise of thousands of physicist that have had the benefit of working directly and indirectly with accelerators. Can they be wrong, of course they can be. But, all investigations have to begin somewhere and go through the process of falsification. Since July 4, 2012, when the Higgs boson was discovered, a total of almost 30,000 Higgs bosons have been observed with the Atlas detector. Cheers! And how do they know that their machine is detecting what they think it is when the particle being scanned for is a particle that at one point didn't exist how on Earth did they calibrate and confirm that their machine could accurately read a hypothetical particle when they didn't have one to use for calibration in the first place? Because it's all I see is a graft with tons of little stock market bars on it and one blip that's a 385,000th of a millisecond or something like that and a bunch of scientists jumping for joy in order to make their investors not kill them for wasting billions of dollars on this machine
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 8, 2023 9:13:16 GMT
A better example is whether it makes sense to put a ski-jump (aka a ramp) on an aircraft-carrier. The Americans, Japanese and French never performed such a faux pas. So i trust their judgement more than I do the Russians, Chinese, Indians and British.
You might be interested to notice, as a matter of method, that since I have been laughing at the aircraft-carrier-ramp, like all over the internet, the British have decided to remove theirs and replace it with something else.
|
|