Why there is no duality to light

[howard2]

A photon is a concentrated packet of the EMF that was formed, as were all particles, in the early moments of the BB during extreme conditions of heat and pressure and turbulence. The particles can only be formed during such extremes.
As the U expanded and cooled the particles stabilized.

The retinas of our eyes are analogue receptors and not digital. They therefore cannot detect photons.
The response curves are standard analogue bell curves as in standard analogue filter design.
Our retinas have red, green and blue receptors.
We only see a limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
As analogue receptors they detect waves in the EMF.
These waves are formed by the passage of photons which create a shock wave front.
The more photons following each other the greater the frequency of wave fronts and the higher the energy per second.
The energy of a single photon is 6.62x 10(-34) Joules or watt/second.
Therefore it has mass.
In the two slit experiment. The photon doesn't have to go through two slots. Only the shock waves do, to cause interference patterns.
So there is no duality to light.
A photon is a particle, and a wave is a disturbance in the field caused by the passage of the photon. These are separate phenomena.

[Gullible Jones]

The retinas of our eyes are analogue receptors and not digital. They therefore cannot detect photons.

That is not correct. Under certain conditions (i.e. total darkness), it is quite possible for the human eye to detect a single photon.

A photon is a particle, and a wave is a disturbance in the field caused by the passage of the photon. These are separate phenomena.

Au contrair. A particle is a fuzzy, probabalistic thing with wavelike properties. A single photon (or electron, for that matter) can go through a pair of slits and interfere with itself.

Of course, as mass increases and wavelength decreases, a particle becomes less fuzzy and wavelike, which is why a transmission electron microscope will reveal details that evade a light microscope.

[mugaliens]

My physics prof was PC in that he said photons exhibited behavior of both.

Then here on this board I've heard valid reasons for duality, particle-only, and wave-only.

Best I've heard that it's a wave is that a filter is like reeds on a lake. Most waves don't get through but some do. The intermittancy is same as the intermittant particle experiement with light source and heavy filters and photo-detector/amplifier. Second reason is we know excitations along the E or M orthogonal axes can induce potentials (electric and magnetic) depending upon what it effects. In photovoltaic, it causes electrons to move. In eyes, it causes a chemical change. But not because it "struck" like a particle but because potential (which applied force) caused something to move. This holds for light's momentum, too. And for the slit theory (waves go through both, even if only detected through one).

So I guess - why one, not the other?

[Laser Jock]

You don't really have so much of a theory or model as a bunch of technobabble. Read this post to see what I think of that. What I can decipher of your ideas appears to be completely wrong. The title of this thread is just plain wrong (light dues have a particle-wave duality), and your post does nothing to help your case. Let's have a look.

A photon is a concentrated packet of the EMF that was formed, as were all particles, in the early moments of the BB during extreme conditions of heat and pressure and turbulence. The particles can only be formed during such extremes.

As the U expanded and cooled the particles stabilized.

I will assume that by EMF you mean electro-magnetic field, not that that helps you; your concept of a photon is still wrong. A photon is simply the energy quanta of an electro-magnetic field. An electro-magnetic wave seems to carry it's energy in discrete bundles, but this does not mean that the waves form "concentrated packets." Rather, a uniform EM wave will deposit its energy on a surface in series of little "kicks" (that may or may not be uniform).

You are also wrong about all photons being only formed in the early moments of the BB. Photons are being created and destroyed constantly all around us. (Almost) every time an electron changes energy levels in an atom one is formed or absorbed. Perhaps what you are calling a photon is not what the rest of the world calls a photon.

I have no idea what you mean by the particles stabilizing.

The retinas of our eyes are analogue receptors and not digital. They therefore cannot detect photons.

Nice little non sequitur here. I'm not even sure what you mean by "analogue" and "digital" receptors here, but I can assure you that our eyes can and do detect photons. When a photon (of the correct frequency) strikes one of the photo-detectors (cones) within our eyes, it will cause a photo-chemical reaction within the cone. This will send a signal to our brain that we interpret as sight. I'm not sure that Gullible Jones is correct that our dark-adapted eyes can detect single photons (I would need a sourse for that), but your are certainly wrong that we can't see photons at all. That's all we can see! Besides, we can build detectors that easily can detect single photons.

The response curves are standard analogue bell curves as in standard analogue filter design.

Not quite. The response curves of our eyes (for the R, B, & G cones) are not quite bell curves (Link). They are somewhat asymmetric. However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement anyway.

Our retinas have red, green and blue receptors.

True.

We only see a limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

True

As analogue receptors they detect waves in the EMF.

These waves are formed by the passage of photons which create a shock wave front.

Huh? How can photons create a "shock wave front?" Do you even know what a shock wave front is? You wouldn't happen to have, oh say, experimental evidence for this phenomenon? I would very much like to see it if you do. All I think you have here is "word salad."

The more photons following each other the greater the frequency of wave fronts and the higher the energy per second.

OK, now I think your making the same mistake that I've corrected others on this board for. You seem to think that the individual peaks and troughs of a EM wave are photons. That is you seem to think that a wave with a frequency of 6 MHz will have 6 million photons passing you by each second. This is nonsense. The energy of a particular photon depends on the frequency of the EM wave. The intensity of the wave will determine the photon flux.

The energy of a single photon is 6.62x 10(-34) Joules or watt/second.

Therefore it has mass.

Another classic non sequitur here. As I and others have pointed out, the energy of a photon depends on the frequency of the EM wave. Why this somehow means the photon has mass is beyond me. You might as well have said "Therefore, the photon has dated Britney Spears." Your statement would have made about as much sense.

In the two slit experiment. The photon doesn't have to go through two slots. Only the shock waves do, to cause interference patterns.

So there is no duality to light.

Non sequitur #3. I won't go into the details of the two slit experiment, other than to say that experiments like the two-slit experiment demonstrate the wave nature of light, and experiments like Compton scattering demonstrate the particle nature of light.

A photon is a particle, and a wave is a disturbance in the field caused by the passage of the photon. These are separate phenomena.

Light is an electromagnetic wave that can sometimes exhibit particle-like behavior. There are actually some respected physicists who are openly questioning the existence of the photon. Specifically, many "photon" phenomenon (like the photo-electric effect), may be explainable without photons (please don't ask me how; I'm not really deep in this field). I still believe in the photon, but I'm ready to change my mind. However, many ATM advocates would be best served if they treated all light as classical EM waves rather than grossly misunderstanding the true nature of the photon.

[howard2]

Laser Jock. Thank you for your in depth commentary. But I object to your tone. Please correct me if I am wrong, But you are skating very close to the line of being in breach of the forum guide lines.
Howard2

[R.A.F.]

Laser Jock. Thank you for your in depth commentary. But I object to your tone. Please correct me if I am wrong, But you are skating very close to the line of being in breach of the forum guide lines.
Howard2

Care to cite examples?? I've looked through Laser Jock's post, and IMO, I can't see anything that would justify your accusation.

[Laser Jock]

Laser Jock. Thank you for your in depth commentary. But I object to your tone. Please correct me if I am wrong, But you are skating very close to the line of being in breach of the forum guide lines.

Care to cite examples?? I've looked through Laser Jock's post, and IMO, I can't see anything that would justify your accusation.

I think that howard just objects to being told that he is wrong.

[north]

just curious.

why have not the patterns on the capture plate been caused by the electrons of the plate( or material) that has the slits in the first place? in the dual slit experiment.

just thinking!!

[Laser Jock]

just curious.

why have not the patterns on the capture plate been caused by the electrons of the plate( or material) that has the slits in the first place? in the dual slit experiment.

just thinking!!

Could you clarify your question? I'm not understanding what you are saying.

[north]

Could you clarify your question? I'm not understanding what you are saying.

well why could not the electron(s) interact with the material that makes up the slit??

[TravisM]

How does it interact? (Sorry for edging in LJ)

If you mean, perhaps, deflection off of one of the walls of the slit, that's been covered before on this board.
There's also another version of this experiment using half-silvered mirrors... if anyone cares to see the set up I could whip up a gif or two.

[north]

How does it interact? (Sorry for edging in LJ)

If you mean, perhaps, deflection off of one of the walls of the slit, that's been covered before on this board.
There's also another version of this experiment using half-silvered mirrors... if anyone cares to see the set up I could whip up a gif or two.

for my own curiosity go ahead

[TravisM]

This is the setup.

There is a photon emitter in the bottom left hand corner. There are two half silvered mirrors (the blue ones,) and two regular mirrors. There are two photon detectors in the upper right hand corner. If all path lengths are equal, the top detector will never register a photon. In fact 100% of the photons will be detected by the detector on the top right.
This experiment has been done with path length up to several meters long.

If either path is blocked, there's a 50% chance either detector will register. But, given the 'decision' of both paths, photons will not enter the top detector.

What do you make of it?

[Laser Jock]

well why could not the electron(s) interact with the material that makes up the slit??

Well this thread is talking about the wave-particle duality of light. Are you talking about the wave-particle duality of electrons?

[TravisM]

Ooh. Let's talk about the wave-particle duality of Neutrons.

[Monique]

Ooh. Let's talk about the wave-particle duality of Neutrons.

And leave out proton??

[Nereid]

And leave out proton??

Teacher! Teacher! I want to talk about the wave/particle duality of relict neutrinos! Can we, please, pleeeeeeeese Teacher?!?!?

[Monique]

Make fun if you wish. I am glad Michael Mozina find nice playmate over on "Light as dark energy/matter Light" thread. Two appear very happy together.

[TravisM]

What do you make of the setup north?

[howard2]

That is not correct. Under certain conditions (i.e. total darkness), it is quite possible for the human eye to detect a single photon.



Au contrair. A particle is a fuzzy, probabalistic thing with wavelike properties. A single photon (or electron, for that matter) can go through a pair of slits and interfere with itself.

Of course, as mass increases and wavelength decreases, a particle becomes less fuzzy and wavelike, which is why a transmission electron microscope will reveal details that evade a light microscope.

Yes, but an electron is not a photon. An electron creates its own magnetic field at 90deg to the axis as it moves. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A photon doesn't. I postulate that the photon creates a wave front on axis in the Zero point energy, Electro-magnetic field, Cosmic background radiation. These fields are where and why the interference patterns occur.

[TravisM]

In physics, the photon (from Greek φως "phos", meaning light) is the quantum of the electromagnetic field, for instance light.

My Emphasis.

[Sandoval]

This is the setup.

There is a photon emitter in the bottom left hand corner. There are two half silvered mirrors (the blue ones,) and two regular mirrors. There are two photon detectors in the upper right hand corner. If all path lengths are equal, the top detector will never register a photon. In fact 100% of the photons will be detected by the detector on the top right.
This experiment has been done with path length up to several meters long.

If either path is blocked, there's a 50% chance either detector will register. But, given the 'decision' of both paths, photons will not enter the top detector.

What do you make of it?

TravisM,

Would you care to elaborate on it? I'm sure many of us would be interested.

[phunk]

TravisM,

Would you care to elaborate on it? I'm sure many of us would be interested.

A photon travelling the red path and one on the blue path will travel the same distance, but the red one will be in the opposite phase as the blue.

If either path is blocked, the photon will have a 50/50 chance of traveling the open path, and will be picked up randomly by one of the 2 detectors.

If both paths are open, the photon will travel BOTH paths, will destructivly interfere with itself going to the top detector and constructivly interfere going to the side detector, resulting in a 100% hitting the side and 0% hitting the top detector. This experiment works with single photons.

[TravisM]

Excelent breakdown Phunk, I couldn't have said any better myself (and perhaps I would have said it much worse.)

This experiment has been carried out with single photons over a distance of "several meters." It's been said that the path lengths could be a lightyear across and once brought back together (the paths) this interference would still be observed.
This says something very dramatic about our universe and the nature of matter. The single photon has to exist as the "posibility" of the two paths, and the time evolution of its wave function could exist in a "spread out" state over potentially vast ammounts of space.
The universe is truely, absolutely awesome.

[johninf]

That light sometimes or always behaves like a wave interests me.
Because it slows down.or has the effect of slowing down in a media.
You can find it on the net any time LIGHT SLOWING DOW.........to
30 metres a sec!
There are particles in space maybe 1 every 50 yards. LIGHT travelling from distant galaxies has to pass billions of them........no wonderwe cannot estimate their distance using hubbles law........the light red shifts because of the intervening matter.

[TravisM]

There are particles in space maybe 1 every 50 yards. LIGHT travelling from distant galaxies has to pass billions of them........no wonderwe cannot estimate their distance using hubbles law........the light red shifts because of the intervening matter.

No. It does not. Light would be scattered by such collisions. We can see clear images that are in focus that are pretty darned far away (HUDF.)
This has been brough up in neumerous tired-light threads. Tired light is thuroughly debunked. Do a search on "tired light" or "compton scattering" to see what I mean.

[Nereid]

No. It does not. Light would be scattered by such collisions. We can see clear images that are in focus that are pretty darned far away (HUDF.)
This has been brough up in neumerous tired-light threads. Tired light is thuroughly debunked. Do a search on "tired light" or "compton scattering" to see what I mean.

TravisM is spot on.

However, if, johninf, you have a version of the 'tired light' hypothesis which has not (so far) been examined, please present it here. If not in your first post, then shortly afterwards, please be sure to show how your new version resolves the inconsistencies between good observational and experimental results that all tired light hypotheses to date have stubbed their toes on.

[TravisM]

TravisM is spot on.

I like it. I think I'll keep it.

[johninf]

How does light slow down?
It has been done in the laboratory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Turmoil in Physics:
Is Light Slowing Down?
by Chuck Missler

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article.

[Wolverine]

johninf, you may not post copyrighted material here as per the forum rules:

4. Copyright

Do not post copyrighted material here. This is very serious. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

I've replaced the mass chunk of text you pasted with a link to the copyrighted article. Please do not do this again.