How is light experimentally proven to be a particle?

[rewebster]

Yes, I do disagree with that statement. Is is not permitted, so somehow horrifying that someone should disagree with A.E.? Am I not allowed to use my imagination, or must I be restricted to the platitudes of the past?

I think imagination/creativity is a subset (a small one) within knowledge. I hadn't seen that statement by Bertie before, and that may be what he may be implying.


having to be restricted to the platitudes of the past? --now that's really horrifying!

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

.. I challenge you to, for example, "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model simply based on "imagination" without invoking ANY degree of knowledge of physics. Go on, I dare you.

Zz.

That may take me a while ---how long do I have/will you give me?

 

[ZapperZ]

That may take me a while ---how long do I have/will you give me?

Imagining things require that long of a time? I've imagined a bunch of things about this thread just while tying this.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Imagining things require that long of a time? I've imagined a bunch of things about this thread just while typing this.

Zz.

Well, your knowledge subset may be a little larger than my knowledge subset; and the time for me to try to "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model may take me a little longer than you typing your last response, so --give me a little break if it takes me some more time:shy: .

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, your knowledge subset may be a little larger than my knowledge subset; and the time for me to try to "violate" Einstein's photoelectric effect model may take me a little longer than you typing your last response, so --give me a little break if it takes me some more time:shy: .

What knowledge? We are doing imagination without knowledge, remember? After all, "imagination" is more important than "knowledge". So invent something, or violate something, using your imagination without invoking ANY knowledge. After all, knowledge is useless and unimportant. Produce for me something using just imagination, and the hell with knowledge.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

What knowledge? We are doing imagination without knowledge, remember? After all, "imagination" is more important than "knowledge". So invent something, or violate something, using your imagination without invoking ANY knowledge. After all, knowledge is useless and unimportant. Produce for me something using just imagination, and the hell with knowledge.

Zz.

Wait a second---you jumped a step on me--

"imagination" is more important than "knowledge" doesn't eliminate knowledge from the equation.

I think it (imagination) embraces knowledge and makes knowledge grow. "Imagination embraces the entire world" including any knowledge.

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

I'm sorry to think that you think, "... knowledge is useless and unimportant."

 

[ZapperZ]

Wait a second---you jumped a step on me--

"imagination" is more important than "knowledge" doesn't eliminate knowledge from the equation.

I think it (imagination) embraces knowledge and makes knowledge grow. "Imagination embraces the entire world" including any knowledge.

I can't believe I have to argue against two different people with varying interpretation of the SAME thing.

I tell you what. Why don't you and MeJennifer fight it out with regards to what you people interpret that often-bastardized Einstein quote, and THEN, give me a call.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Argue?--argue??----I wasn't arguing----me?-----arguing?----I would NEVER do that---I thought we were just interpreting the quote in different ways and discussing the "often-bastardized Einstein" quote.

 

[Crosson]

A reasonable introduction to modern experiments with photons is Greenstein and Zajonc's The Quantum Challenge printed in 2006. It has a chapter entitled "Do Photons exist?", which gives numerous references to the work of Aspect, Wheeler, and others that has (in the last 30 years) probed the wave-particle nature of light in new ways, tending to support the photon picture.

 

[reilly]

Imagination without knowledge creates illusion. Knowledge without imagination is just plain boring. If you check, by reading his work, Einstein was very knowledgeable, a master of 19th century physics. He had an extraordinarily good imagination and a huge gift for creativity, and a great nose for the right problem, which allowed him to define much of the physics of the 20th century.

As I am won't to say, there's a lot of history here -- both of Einstein's work -- see Pais' Einstein bio -- and a huge literature on creativity -- many works by Howard Gardner of Harvard, and, in particular, in The Psycholgy of Mathematical Invention by Jaques Hadamard -- a world class mathematician,
who discusses an interview with Einstein.

Creativity is far more than knowledge and imagination.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[rewebster]

Creativity, yes---the inspired facet applied at the right vector that makes knowledge and imagination sparkle----good point, R. A., once again.

 

[prasannapakkiam]

aww coeme on! This is ridiculous! Imagination? Where did that come from? Anyway Zz, What part of an light'wave(??) trandsferring energy into an electron, thus exciting it to 'move up', have any connotations of proving it is a particle?

 

[ZapperZ]

aww coeme on! This is ridiculous! Imagination? Where did that come from? Anyway Zz, What part of an light'wave(??) trandsferring energy into an electron, thus exciting it to 'move up', have any connotations of proving it is a particle?

Did you ever read my post on this? I mentioned TWO other important experiments: the which-way experiment AND the photon anti-bunching experiment, which have ZERO classical explanation offered so far.

Furthermore, what you call as a "particle" is NOT the same way that physicists characterize as a "particle". And last time I checked, this characterization of light as being "particles" were originally made by physicists. We have already defined what is meant by this in our FAQ.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Just as an example, I read a post last night that someone had posted about spin and thought that I was finally starting to understand it, only to be given another post stating that those tests were not conclusive and had problems. Its a never ending circle. And again, I'm only responding to those claiming understanding as if its there to have.
glenn

I was looking for something else on the web, and I ran across this 'other' (probably) "often-bastardized" quote by Einie that I (again) hadn't seen before that relates to the above:

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." --- Albert Einstein

funny guy, that Einstein, ---he must have been a laugh at the quantum office party.

 

[Parlyne]

funny guy, that Einstein, ---he must have been a laugh at the quantum office party.

Well, he was and he wasn't...

 

[rewebster]

... and he wasn't...

yeah, I know; I put him at 'quantum' party because he was too involved with the 'relatives'.

 

[Parlyne]

yeah, I know; I put him at 'quantum' party because he was too involved with the 'relatives'.

Are you suggesting he found entanglements to be the causality of much distress?

 

[rewebster]

yes--exactly--the wave function over E (instead of M) lead to (equaled) the big D

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm assuming that since this thread has now dragged on into casual ramblings, this topic is done.

Zz.