/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10427061
>What would it mean for a photon to have a frequency?
[math]m = \frac{h \cdot f}{c^2}[/math]

>>10427061
You know light is neither a wave nor a particle. It's something else that share some of wave's properties and some of mater's property.

Cannot remember the paper but it was found that we can probably detect the presence of a single photon?

>>10427061
-- every interjection point forms discrite "packets" of energy ("quanta"commonly denominated "photons " ) the energy carried by each point is "h" (plank constant or minimun energy state), each "point" has no mass and no charge . the higher the frequency the higher the number of "packets of energy" (photons) per unit of time. the higher the frequency the color perception shift from red to blue.--

Light takes millions of years to be ejected from the sun but only 8 minutes to reach you on earth.

However from the photon's perspective the trip is instantaneous.

>>10427374
t. Ken Wheeler
Explain mirrors.

>>10428830
Perspective as in what? Does it have a sense of consciousness? Eyes?

>>10427061
both. things can be two things read into skyrmions made from light.

>>10428521
>the higher the frequency the higher the number of "packets of energy" (photons) per unit of time. the
That cant be. More photons equally brighter not different colors

>>10427061
It's only a wave. Visible light is only a small part of the spectrum. Photons are virtual particles made up for physicists to use mathematically to make sense of something that has no physical reality.

Where are that radio wave photons, where are the uv photons. Etc wht isn't my cellphone shooting unlimited photons out when sending and receiving signal.
Why does light slow down then instantly speed up when exiting glass or a denser medium.
Why does light from a dull candle travel the same speed as light from the sun.
W
A
V
E

O
N
L
Y

>>10427061
Best theory out there right now.

https://youtu.be/b-hFnCPPADU

>>10428854
Hypothetical perspective of a clearly inanimate object

>>10427098
>>10427374
>>10428521
>>10428854
>>10428857
>>10429192
>>10429216
to say this thread is extremely disappointing would be an understatement

>>10429249
Why because your NPC brain is working on basic mode. And any other theorys are automatically wrong.

Tell us your unified theory of reality please?

>>10428521
This. Photons are erroneously classed as a particle where they are actually the compression stages of the longitudinal wave of light. Transverse emr and longitudinal compressions and rarifactions are light. Not particle.

>>10429186
waves of what?

>>10429284
Don't say anyone is working in basic mode when you're using laymen's terms.

Any quantum system is in a linear combination of eigenstates. The oscillating effect of the hamiltonian operator on these states is why we say we can treat it as a "wave". When it is in only 1 eigenstate, the oscillation of phase factor has no measurable effect, so we say we can treat it as a "particle" because it's easier for brainlets like you to understand.

But no please, go on, misinterpreting popsci into "your unified theory of reality" provided some much needed comedic relief.

>>10428873
frequency equals "color", the intensity comes from the wave amplitude, same as with any other electromagnetic wave or even a wave in water.

>>10427061
It's a wavepacket; it has a narrow distribution of frequencies.

>>10427061
particle.

/thread

>>10428521
Couldn’t have said it better myself. /thread

>>10429942
Literally no one thinks this besides brainlets

>>10429989
>the higher the frequency the higher the number of "packets of energy" (photons) per unit of time
>Couldn’t have said it better myself
You also couldn't have said it worse, it's good to know we're dealing with someone who has yet to take a physics course in their life though

>>10430071
>You also couldn't have said it worse.

elavorate so we can all have a discussion, that's the whole idea of this place anyways.

>>10430112
well first of all an individual photon can have any frequency, frequency has nothing to do with photon count...

>>10430188
>an individual photon can have any frequency

anon I think that you are mixing things, are you talking about "probability wave funtion" or electromagnetism? in electromagnetism the "photon" is directly related to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. and in "probability wave funtion" I think the "frequency" can not be just "any".

>>10430272
Usually when I hear "probability wave function" it is accompanied by a domain the wave function acts on. You can't exactly perform a function on thin air. Care to elaborate?

I'm talking about electromagnetism.
>in electromagnetism the "photon" is directly related to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave
The electromagnetic wave IS the photon. And what's related is it's energy and frequency. Where did you get that a higher frequency means more photons?

>>10429186
What about double split experiment?

>>10428521
>>10429989
>>10430272
this is very wrong

the frequency is related to the energy of a photon: it has nothing to do with the number of photons.

The problem is that the term 'photon' is quite ill-defined:

It is either an excitation of the EM field of definite frequency, or a continuous superposition of frequency eigenstates forming a wavepacket, as I posted here:
>>10429661
Often in physics 'photon' is just used to mean 'chunk of EM radiation' (and because of this nebulous definition, W.E. Lamb wrote an article disapproving its use).

>>10430581
>It is either an excitation of the EM field of definite frequency, or a continuous superposition of frequency eigenstates forming a wavepacket, as I posted here:
>>>10429661

but THAT is a "probability wave funtion" that doesn't mean the particle is "creating a electromagnetic wave" or that that particle "is a actual wave" the probability wave funcion only describes some aspect of the particle (like where is the probability to find it) and that probability could be said to "it looks like a wave" (as per the pic you posted) but this do not describe the particle itself .

at 7:50 explains it even better that I ever could:

https://youtu.be/Usu9xZfabPM

>>10427061
only a none-physical observer collapses the wave function

>>10431473
>but THAT is a "probability wave funtion" that doesn't mean the particle is "creating a electromagnetic wave" or that that particle "is a actual wave" the probability wave funcion only describes some aspect of the particle (like where is the probability to find it) and that probability could be said to "it looks like a wave" (as per the pic you posted) but this do not describe the particle itself .
All this shows is that it's useless to consider light or any other fundamental system as a "particle"

>>10431842
I wonder what will happen 100 years from now, the more I study quantum mechanics and particle theory the more I realise it's just a ugly mess.

it took 200 years since newton for a new vision, l hope the current one doesn't take that long to change.

>>10427061
its a ray
t. paraxial approximation
dab on em

>Actually thinks scientific entities such as waves or particles exist in any ontological way beyond our construction of them in our models

Imagine being this bluepilled.

I don't feel like making a thread so I'll hijack this.

How do high speed cameras capture the movement of light? Doesn't light have to reach the camera lens for there to be a picture? How has light only moved some distance left/right between photos but still managed to reach the camera?

>>10434077
>How do high speed cameras capture the movement of light?

wait a minute, are there camaras with shutter speed operating at "light speed" or "very close to it"? what is the source for your question? i'll like to see that footage.

Ok simple question but profoundly deep and I've never heard it talked about before but because we have two eyes does that make our brains a double slit experience(experiment)?

>>10435103
Are we responsible for the collapse of our own probability wave?

>>10435103
No. our eyes are too big. it only works on every small slits.

>>10427061
All particles travel in wasves dumbass.