Is there any absolute proof that photons exist?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the existence of photons and the challenges posed by individuals who deny their existence. Participants explore the implications of such denial and the nature of evidence in scientific discourse, particularly in relation to unfalsifiable claims.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration with individuals who deny the existence of photons, comparing such beliefs to other forms of pseudoscience.
  • Others argue that engaging with crackpot theories is unproductive, as these beliefs are resistant to logical and evidence-based refutation.
  • One participant references the energy equation E=hv from the photoelectric effect as an example of established science related to photons.
  • Compton scattering is mentioned as another relevant example in discussing the properties of photons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that engaging with unfounded claims is unproductive, but there is no consensus on how to address such beliefs effectively.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a tension between the desire to refute misinformation and the recognition that some beliefs may be impervious to rational argumentation.

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
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
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