Re: What is a photon

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:

On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 03.06.2025 13:48, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:

On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 01.06.2025 12:03, skrev bertitaylor:

A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light
speed
in the medium of aether.
>

>

>
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?

>

>
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.

>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
Universe.
And in 1543 Copernicus  knew nothing about the speed of light.
>
You obviously meant to refer to the "Copenhagen interpretation",
that is the interpretation of quantum mechanics given
by Bohr and Heisenberg in ~1925.
>
Modern quantum fields theories such as QED are based on SR.
In QED light is a particle and the speed of light is invariant.
>
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
>
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
>
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
>

>

>
Paul, retarded narcissist & relativist.
>
>
>
Forget any local experiment (within the Solar System) about the
constancy of
the speed of light.

>
Does that mean that you accept that light is invariant
in the Solar system, but not outside our galaxy?
>
BTW, "invariant" doesn't really mean constant,
it means independent of frames of reference.
For example: mass is invariant, but not always constant.
(But the speed of light is constant _and_ invariant.)
>

>
Come here when you can show off with ONE EXPERIMENT AT GALACTIC
DISTANCE, like
OWLS or TWLS between some planet in a random star system at Andromeda,
to the least.
>
>
Or get proofs for that assertion between another random planet at ESO
6-1 or
NGC 5237, close to the Milky Way.
>
WHAT? You can't wait some million years? No shit.
>
>
Then SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP, IMBECILE!

>
Watch your blood pressure, Richard. :-D

>
>
THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ALONG THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, IS RANDOMLY VARIANT
(MAXWELL SAID THAT, WITH THE PERMITTIVITY AND PERMEABILITY SHIT),

>
If you bothered to notice, the permittivity and permeability stuff
even allowed a calculation of light speed.
>
These and an array of other phenomena tend to give me the idea that
it is very hasty to throw out all aspects of wave theory.  Rather
something like the 'ether' may have something to do with space and
time.  (Historically the term 'ether' was tossed out, but of course
words can have different meanings.)
>
To me, it seems best to keep it simple.

Which does not work when it is wrong and then for justification leads to
absurdities described by wrong theories backed by math mumbo jumbo.
 A 'photon' is an increment

of energy or momentum transfer.

Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single
photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
This 'yes' or 'no' happening can

also be tied to phenomena that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics (only
one state allowed by way of the Pauli exclusion principle) to form
'matter' (it takes up space).  This also allows the 'orbitals' in
'chemistry' (cool and also 'nuclear physics' if you add 'strong' and
'weak' forces).
>
These are not entirely obvious inferences but not everything is
entirely obvious.
>
 > ...

--