Incredibly huge inconsistency of modern physics

With the consequent application of the mass-energy equivalence ...snipped ignorance...
Yes, wogoga, a display of ignorance is clear and simple :p!

E=mc2 says that photons have no energy (m is rest mass, photons have no rest mass). That is just wrong. E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 is the full SR equations that is applicable to both massive and massless particles.

E=mc2 is not that energy is conserved. The law of energy conservation says that energy is conserved :eek:.

Under normal conditions, photons leave a window with less energy than they entered . That is why windows heat up when the Sun shines on them. The photons scatter from the glass molecules, heat them up and lose energy. The reason that windows do not heat up until they melt is that hot things radiate light. So the window heats up until the amount of energy it radiates because it is hot matches the energy that it is absorbing from the photons.

The refractive index n is basically a parameter describing that scattering.

There is no relativistic mass for photons because they do not even have rest (invariant) mass! The m in E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 is zero. For photons and other massless particles E=pc.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:

Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb. ​

On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.​

On collimated light:

Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.​

On coherence length

In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.​

In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics, the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same state. Wikipedia on stimulated emission:

In optics, stimulated emission is the process by which, when perturbed by a photon, matter may lose energy resulting in the creation of another photon. The perturbing photon is not destroyed in the process (cf. absorption), and the second photon is created with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the original. ​

So already the central premise of this QM thought experiment, namely that one single photon functions as two collimated beams of coherent light, is an impossibility. Coherence is a property only of groups of photons and not of single photons. A single photon cannot have different phases, frequencies, polarizations, and directions of travel. (Yes, I know, Heisenberg's authority ...).

On the one hand, it is very astonishing how little research has been done on coherence of light. On the other hand, this is understandable, because the acknowledgement that photons normally appear as coherent groups undermines even on the theoretic side the beloved strangeness of the world of quanta. Interference effects which are now assumed to result from interference of photons with themselves can then easily be explained by interference between photons belonging to a same coherence group, but having taken different paths before reuniting again.

So the meaning of this interesting quote (Wikipedia on Bell test experiments)

Nevertheless, despite all these deficiencies of the actual experiments, one striking fact emerges: the results are, to a very good approximation, what quantum mechanics predicts. If imperfect experiments give us such excellent overlap with quantum predictions, most working quantum physicists would agree with John Bell in expecting that, when a perfect Bell test is done, the Bell inequalities will still be violated. ​

actually is this (see also):

We must admit that strictly speaking, these experiments are imperfect (i.e. not good enough in order to decide the question). However, we as working quantum physicists devoutly believe that also perfect experiments would confirm that Bohr is right and Einstein wrong. ​

Cheers, Wolfgang

Dead and zombie cats!!
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:

Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb. ​

On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.​

On collimated light:

Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.​

On coherence length

In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.​

In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics,
'Arbitrary' here means that you dismiss the facts with no reason. You don't understand probability theory so you dismiss it as arbitrary. There isn't any experimental science that doesn't require probability and statistics to analyze the data.

>the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social >particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same >state.

Part of your problem is that 'single photon' is a statistical concept. The way experimenters interpret this is the following. If a photon source is considered a single source, the probability that more than one photon is in the volume between slit and detector is very small. The probability determines the precision of the experiment. There is a simple way to decrease the probability to any level one likes. One only has to use a dim light source.

A light source can be considered single photon if it is so dim that within the response time of the detector, the probability of finding one photon in the apparatus is much greater than the probability of finding two photons in the apparatus. One counts the photons over time periods much longer than the response time of the detector.

The probability of finding two photon events is determined by Poisson statistics. Poisson statistics govern the noise of most experimental data, including the statistics of classical physics experiments.

'Single photon sources' are determined both by the parameters of the instruments and statistics of quantum mechanics. It is the parameters of the instruments that you don't understand. Single photon refers to the photons that excite the detector within the response time of the detector.



Scientists are working on making intense 'single photon' sources. These will make quantum devices more cost effective. However, even without such intense sources we can use weak (i.e., dim) sources of photons.

One can't do an experiment with dim sources of light without using statistics. Quantum mechanics was largely successful with explaining what happened in experiments using dim sources of light.

A 'single photon source' in your references actually means a 'very dim source of light'. Photons can't be detected with strong light sources because the photons come too close together. An intense source of light can be considered a 'classical source' of light because the photons come too close together.
 
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.
 
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.

Please add Doron Shadmi's thread 'Deeper than primes'. It also needs an observer created reality.
 
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.


Very interesting comment, also from the psychological point of view!


Is this you admitting your mistake in thinking that Einstein's actual 1905 SR paper does not contain E=mc2 by quoting a part of another paper published in 190) that does contain E=mc2, wogoga?


I was dealing with "Einstein's original equation" of "1905" (see #99). Here you replace it with "actual 1905 SR paper".

But even in this "actual 1905 SR paper" (published in September, two month before the mass-energy paper) we find this formula for the kinetic energy of an electron (replacing W by Ekin, V by c and Greek Mu by m):

Ekin = m c2 { (1-v2/c2)-0.5 – 1 }​

Cheers, Wolfgang

For Darwin123: Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion in Special Relative and Lorentz Ether Theory
 
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.

Please do not mention me as an example, thank you.
 
I was dealing with "Einstein's original equation" of "1905" (see #99). Here you replace it with "actual 1905 SR paper".
No - I point out that when you say Einstein + 1905 + paper" without stating which paper it is then this is the "actual 1905 SR paper".

And in this "actual 1905 SR paper" there is no E=mc2 :eek:.

There is this formula for the kinetic energy of an electron (replacing W by Ekin, V by c and Greek Mu by m):

Ekin = m c2 { (1-v2/c2)-0.5 – 1 }​

Cheers Reality Check
 


You did not address my comments about single photons. I found nothing in your link addressing the issue of photons in quantum mechanics. In fact, I found nothing about intensity, single photons or sociability among photons in that link. There wasn't a single thing said about quantum mechanics at all.

There was some misuse of the phrase, 'Lorentz invariant', in that link. I hypothesize that you conflated 'relativistic Doppler shift' with "Lorentz invariance'. So let me quote from this iconoclastic link.

'A spherical light wave is Lorentz invariant:

x2 + y2 + z2 = (c t)2 --> x'2 + y2 + z2 = (c t')2

But I don't think that all segments corresponding to given solid
angles are Lorentz invariant in the same way. We can for instance
divide the original spherical wave into two parts separated by
the circularly propagating wave'

Okay, a light wave can not be Lorentz invariant. Maybe you meant the wave front is Lorentz invariant? However, that doesn't make much sense either. The shape of the wave front will vary with the relative velocity of the light source and the observer because of relativistic Doppler shift.

I conjecture that this is what you meant is that the shape of the wave front does vary with velocity of the source. According to special relativity, this is not due to a variation in the speed of light. This has more to do with the phase of the light source which can vary with direction. I suspect that you conflated the definition of 'proper time' with the definition of 'spherical'.


Nor can a wave be 'circularly propagating' unless there is some force that makes the light wave move in a circle. If there is reflective body like a mirror, a very strong gravitational force, or wave interference, then the light wave can move on a curved path. However, the spherical wave front is not consistent with any of this.

Thank you for the snow on Christmas !-)
 
That's not the half of it.

A "photon" is a particle. Yet all matter has mass. So a "photon" isn't really matter at all because it has no mass, thus its not even a particle.

'round and 'round we go where we stop nobody knows!!

Contradictions are very numerous in establishment physics. Good luck calling these people out on it.
 
I can list many dozens of contradictions, but it would be a waste of time. I've found out its just mathematicians confusing math formulas for reality. That's all it is.

Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. They will strut around victorious, **** all over the board and claim victory without actually moving any pieces.
 
A "photon" is a particle. Yet all matter has mass. So a "photon" isn't really matter at all because it has no mass, thus its not even a particle.

Using the definition of "mass" (i.e. rest mass) which makes photons massless, there is no law of physics which demands that the second sentence above should be true.
 
Last edited:
Equivalence between mass and energy on the one hand, but energy without mass on the other hand. How is it possible that educated persons accept such a huge inconsistency?
In the spirit of necrophilia, let me add my 2c:

The formula E = mc2 / (1 - v2/c2)0.5 gives the relativistic kinetic energy for a particle of mass m traveling at speed v.

For a massless particle traveling at the speed of light (m=0, v=c) this formula reduces to 0/0 which is an indeterminate form (ie the formula tells us nothing about its kinetic energy).

I can list 6 possibilities about such a particle:
* The particle has zero kinetic energy
* The particle has finite positive kinetic energy* The particle has infinite positive kinetic energy
* The particle has finite negative kinetic energy
* The particle has infinite negative kinetic energy
* The particle does not exist.

We know from observation that the second possibility is the correct one but to calculate its energy we need to use a different formula (one derived from wave or quantum mechanics).

I don't know why you call it an inconsistency but it certainly is not a logical inconsistency.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom