Is there any absolute proof that photons exist?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the existence of photons and the challenges of refuting anti-scientific claims. Participants emphasize that engaging with individuals who deny established scientific facts, such as the existence of photons, is often futile. The conversation highlights the importance of focusing on credible scientific principles, such as the equation E=hv, which describes the energy of a photon in the photoelectric effect, and Compton scattering as evidence of photon behavior.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the photoelectric effect and its relation to photons
  • Familiarity with Compton scattering and its implications in quantum physics
  • Knowledge of logical argumentation and the backfire effect in discussions
  • Awareness of scientific literacy and the distinction between credible science and pseudoscience
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the photoelectric effect and its mathematical representation, E=hv
  • Study Compton scattering and its significance in demonstrating photon properties
  • Explore the psychological concept of the backfire effect and its impact on belief systems
  • Investigate strategies for effectively communicating scientific concepts to skeptics
USEFUL FOR

Scientists, educators, and anyone engaged in discussions about quantum physics and the nature of light, particularly those addressing misconceptions about photons and scientific reasoning.

Andew
I mean, look this stupidity: [Mentor's note - link to crackpot site deleted]
This guy denies that light photons exist, and that we are 'magically creating it' like cyclops X-Men
This is worst than flat-earthers, I wonder If there is some evidence or is it unfalsifiable, like solipsism? Because I want to refute him
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Andew said:
Because I want to refute him
We do not discuss crackpottery here, even to refute it. Several reasons:
- If we did, we wouldn't be talking about anything else as the supply of crackpottery is apparently endless.
- It can't be refuted. Refutation depends on logical fact-based arguments, and crackpots are impervious to both.
- The positive and productive act of talking about what real science says generates enough work for the mentors and SAs already.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hoophy and Pepper Mint
Ok, sorry about that
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hoophy
Yeah, take it from someone who used to spend way too much time bickering with creationists, conspiracy nuts, and "evo-psych" MRAs. You will never convince these people of anything, and in fact you will most likely succeed only in strengthening their convictions because of the backfire effect: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

Simply put, you can't use a logical and science-based argument on someone who is not interested in using logic himself and is dead-set on the belief that the scientists are in on the conspiracy.
 
For example, E=hv is the energy of a photon in photoelectric effect.
You can also use Compton scattering related examples .
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
162
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K