Re: What is a photon

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 3:13:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
>

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 1:07:24 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

This is MY DEFINITION of what a photon is, which merges Maxwell and
Planck:
>
A photon (Planck) is a ray of light (Maxwell), which is:
>
 - Self-propelled point-like particle that is the least component of
light itself.

How ridiculous as a point particle being a point cannot diminish with
distance as per the inverse square law which is logical, real and
evident to all those blessed with sanity.

>
Rubbish. Point particles can not bend nicely in denser medium. They
cannot have interference patterns. They cannot be polarized. They cannot
get a uniform phase front as in laser or maser. They cannot diffract.
There is no way they can create standing wave patterns.

>
>
>
>
Bertietaylor, YOUR LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS IS APPALLING.

Your need to shout shows you are some kind of thumper. Nothing
scientific. A waste of time!
YOU NEED TO RESET YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHAT IS

WRONG WITH YOUR MIND.

More thumping. What are you, a street corner fundie asking all to
repent?
Never mind!
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

>
IT'S NOT THE POINT-LIKE PARTICLE WHICH BENDS OR CREATE INTERFERENCE
PATTERNS, MAN.
>
IT'S DUE TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS, WHICH ARE
SELF-GENERATED AND SELF-SUSTAINED FOREVER, ACROSS HUGE DISTANCES OF
BILLIONS OF LY.
>
WHEN TRESPASSING MEDIUMS ON ITS LONG JOURNEY ON SPACE, BOTH FIELDS ADAPT
TO CORRECT THE SPEED OF SUCH PARTICLE (AKA PHOTON).
>
ALWAYS, SINCE 1865 AND 1901, BOTH THEORIES WERE THE EXACT REPRESENTATION
OF A TOP-DOWN APPROACH (MAXWELL) AND A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (PLANCK).
>
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR UNDERSTAND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A DEEP
THINKER, AND I PITY YOU FOR IT.
>
GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND BOTH MODELS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AND
YOU'LL FIND THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A CENTURY, DUE TO
FUCKING IMBECILES LIKE THE QUANTUM GUYS, WHO PRETENDED (VERY ENCOURAGED)
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IN A WAY MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN WHAT IS NEEDED.
>
EITHER IN RADIO ENGINEERING OR IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE
THE SAME. THIS IS WHAT ALLOWED PROGRESS IN PHOTONICS AS WELL AS ANYTHING
RELATED TO RADIO TELECOM, RANGING, ETC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
 - It's a carrier of energy (Planck) that is emitted/absorbed by
electrons that
   are orbiting atoms, which have different levels of energy.

>
Forget energy. That is trader talk from Jewish physics. It is force that
is the keyword. Aether is back thanks to Arindam and all the
extraordinary bungling wrapped by math gibberish is out.

>
 - It's created as if space of any kind (Maxwell) IGNITES under such
discharge
   causing that the point-like energy oscillates with electric and
magnetic fields
   in quadrature, with speed depending on the refraction index of the
media.

>
Blah
>
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
Bertietaylor

>
- Under classic physics (Maxwell, unaware of Planck discovery) photons
are not
  perceived as a sum of enormous amounts of ray of light (each ray
linked to a
  bounded electron). On the opposite side, under Planck vision, light is
composed
  of a large amount of photons, each one with energy E=hf.
>
- The confusion between classic and quantum physics is due to the
interpretation
  of what light is. In Maxwell's world, light is the sum (coherent or
not) of huge
  amounts of ray of light (each one a photon), and is expressed in terms
of energy
  per unit area. In Planck's world, light is the sum (coherent or not)
of huge
  amount of photons, each one carrying energy E=hf.
>
- The speed of the photon or the ray of light is defined by Maxwell, in
terms of
  the permittivity and permeability of the medium. The collision of the
emitted
  energy per atom is what ignites the medium, creating the point-like
particle.
>
- The classic representation of light as a sinusoidal wave is just an
abstraction
  used for more than a century, representing the behavior of the
electrical field.
>
- There is not a dual behavior of light. This "paradox" is caused by the
confusion
  when light is analyzed entirely (Maxwell) or at its least expression
(Planck).
  Top-down versus bottom-up appreciation of light.
>
- But the point-like structure (the photon) has always been there since
1865-
>
>
Absolute truth has been spoken.

>
--

--