Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Photonic Leap in the Dark

  1. Mar 2, 2004 #1
    The most abundant form of free energy is the photon.

    The energy of a photon can range from virtually nothing up to about a Joule (see Planck). It provides us with heat - infra-red, light, even fast food - microwave.
    The photon's half-life is somewhere in the region of 6.5 billion years, which makes it pretty stable.

    At the lowest level, every atom absorbs and emits photons, and all of these photons travel at exactly the same velocity, without exception.

    This velocity is the same as electromagnetic force, would figure as electromagnetic force is down to the photon. It also has the same velocity as Gravity.

    When light strikes a surface, the photon imparts a force of approx 0.002 newtons.

    Here's the conundrum.

    The mythical particle, the Graviton, must be as prolific as the Photon, yet no one has ever managed to detect one, or any similar particle. The Graviton has the same velocity as the photon and presumably the same mass, or lack of.

    So, if a photon can excert a force on an object in the direction it is travelling, what is behind the photon ?

    If there exists a force behind the photon, it would be in the opposite direction to the photon's direction of motion. It would also be as prolific as the photon - bit obvious that.

    Could the illusive Force of Gravity be hiding behind the Photon, hence why it has never been detected, yet why it is so prolific.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2004 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It ain't free. It costs energy to excite quantum systems so that they can deexcite and emit those little suckers.

    The energy of a photon does not have an upper bound.

    Where did you get that figure? Neither half-life nor mean-life statistics are presented in the LBL Particle Date Group listing for the photon.



    You have to specify the frequency and the angle of incidence in order to calculate the force.

    The reason no one can detect a graviton (if they exist) is that gravity is so weak and our technology is not that sensitive yet. Remember, real gravitons would be the low-intensity manifestation of gravity waves--but even those are too weak to be detected, even at classical intensities!

    So, it's a small wonder why gravitons have not been found experimentally.

    There is no need for there be a force behind a photon. A photon carries momentum, and it can transfer that momentum to another object. A momentum transfer over a time interval is a force.
  4. Mar 2, 2004 #3
    Re: Re: Photonic Leap in the Dark

    By Free, I mean free of any system, independant, not the cost of emission.

    Planck found that the wavelength of photons came as multiples of his constant. This would imply that when a wavelength of 1 Planck constant was reached, that should be the upper bound. If the wavelength could reduce further wouldn't Planck's constant have a different value ?

    The value of I quoted was wrong. The point was that it excerts a force when striking a surface.

    My argument was that if a force exists directly behind a photon, then its characteristics would be intriguing.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2004
  5. Mar 2, 2004 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Photonic Leap in the Dark

    No, he did not. What he found is that the energy of atomic radiators, when treated as oscillators, have energies that are multiples of his constant.

    That is:


    This says nothing about an upper bound on either frequency or wavelength.

    edit: fixed color bracket
  6. Mar 2, 2004 #5

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Photonic Leap in the Dark

    Well, as I said, there is no need to think of a force "behind a photon". The photon carries momentum, which can be transfered.
  7. Mar 2, 2004 #6
    I'm not disputing that a photon has momentum, and that it can be transferred.

    It is what is happening behind the photon.
    The easiest analogy is a car travelling at a velocity, directly behind the car there is a partial vacuum caused by the car travelling through the air.
    Now this obviously implies, with the photon, that there is a medium through which it travels, and in this medium, directly behind the photon, is a partial vacuum or hole.

    If this were the case, would not the properties of this hole be acting in the right direction, travelling at the right velocity and be prolific enough to look like gravity ?
  8. Mar 2, 2004 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But that vacuum is not the force that propels the car forward. Sure, it acts in the same direction, but the primary force that moves the car forward is friction. What's more, a car would move forward even in a total vacuum, provided you stored an internal air supply with which to combust the fuel.

    No, it does not imply that. You can't simply make a mutadis mutandis conclusion like that without showing that all the elements in the analogy connect. Indeed, I have demonstrated that they do not connect. The partial vacuum behind the car is not necessary for the motion of the car.
  9. Mar 2, 2004 #8
    This is not about how the photon moves, this is about once it is moving what is happening behind it.

    The analogy was an example showing what is happening behind the vehicle, not what put it in motion.

    The assumption I made is that if the same effect is happening behind a photon, it too would have to be travelling through a medium and what the properties of the hole behind the photon would be.
  10. Mar 2, 2004 #9

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So? I already noted that the car can move in a total vacuum, a condition in which nothing is happening behind it.
  11. Mar 3, 2004 #10
    That's fine if you can have a perfect vacuum, but even deepest space is not viewed as a complete vacuum.
    Theories concerning zero point energy and the like define space as far from being a vacuum.
    I speculated that there is a medium involved, and used the analogy of a vehicle travelling through air.

    This medium would imply, as with ZPE, that there is no total vacuum and that the motion of a photon would impart some reaction from the medium through which it is travelling.
  12. Mar 3, 2004 #11
    Mmm..are we talking about a Polarized Vacuum Field?, with ordinary Photons trancending across it?

    Or are you stipulating a definate Vitual Gas State = A minimum Vacuum?

    This give an insight as to what happens 'behind' the Photon:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polclas.html#c3
  13. Mar 3, 2004 #12
    It's not really the medium that I'm concerned with.
    Suffice to say that it's a substrate.

    Thanks for the link. It gives an explanation of electromagnetic waves, but not particles.

    I'm assuming that the photon, in its simplest form, is particulate energy, and trying to avoid the wave/particle duality debate.

    Would not the passage of a particle of energy through a substrate create a hole behind it, which is then filled by the substrate ? This filling of the hole would then effect other energy particles in close proximatey.
    There would also be a build up of pressure in the substrate immediately in front of the particle.
  14. Mar 5, 2004 #13
    If an atom gives off energy through its vibtration, this energy would be in discrete packets, essentially similar to photons.
    The atoms emissions would be omnidirectional.
    If each energy packet moving through the substrate created a hole behind it, which is then filled, this would provide a force back towards the source atom.

    I suppose one way to test this would be if an atom could be reduced to absolute zero, at which point all vibtration would cease, would the atom cease to have a gravitational field ?

    Is temperature a factor in determining the strength of an objects graviational field ?
  15. Mar 5, 2004 #14
    That is a very good question. Of course, reaching absolute zero is considered by many to be unachievable, but I suppose it is only a matter of time, technology, insight and effort.
  16. Mar 6, 2004 #15
    What about the mass to be the only "actor"?
    Think of photon's impact (and force exercited) as a "mass reaction" to something. This thing could be another "mass action" that is modifying the space-curve accordingly with the observed effect.
    By such assumption light is not "travelling" through the space.
    Simply space is contracting and twisting due to masses behaviour: if a mass "modifies" its gravity property then a "light phenomenon" is observed by other masses related thru the space-frame.
    Therefore mass and light (and time of course) must be strictly tied each other.
    My point is that a point of mass is the limit of 3-d coordinates collapsing at light speed into that point towards a 4th orthogonal dimension (i.e. we are in presence of rules that give the illusion of substance).
    Think of mass-point as a mini-black-hole that is operating at a very high frequency (almost infinite) and appears as a black door (i.e. with a delimited size - say a Critical Radius - but nothing inside). It should be clear that if we look outside its dimension we observe "a mass". Yet, if we go inside we experiment a really "uncertain behaviour" (Eisenberg principle).
  17. Mar 6, 2004 #16
    Light and Mass have one thing in common, they are both comprised of Energy.
    Maybe Space is expanding and contracting around Energy.
    This expansion and contraction would provide the mechanism for the interaction between energy and the subsequent creation of complex particles and mass.
  18. Mar 8, 2004 #17
    Here's a link to an as yet unreleased (and unfinished) Unified Theory.
    It is something new and I hope it will be of interest.

    http://gamert.co.uk/Theory/GT-page-1.htm [Broken]

    I'd appreciate any positive feedback.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  19. Mar 8, 2004 #18
    I read almost all that you wrote. I think that your theory could be interesting, but I'm dealing with a problem that is at the basis of knowledge itself:
    How can an inhabitant of a (generic) universe perceive the "system"?
    Your theory leads to something everlasting (you say energy) principle. The logical conclusion is that "energy" has been, is, and will be the only source for everything but you (another form of energy) cannot define it in terms of something else: so energy becomes a tautology.
    I think that an antinomy sounds better to be the seed of everything (far better if absolutely void: it needs no definitions).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  20. Mar 8, 2004 #19
    Thanks for that, I'm glad you found it interesting.

    Energy - where did it come from and where will it go ?

    One of the biggest questions which has had scholars putting forward a myriad of different theories.

    The amount of Energy being constant merely agrees with the conservation of energy law.
    All that we know is contained within the system (our Universe), as are we. To be able to view the properties of the system you would have to view it externally, and unfortunately that's beyond our capabilities.
    So we are confined to use those those properties of the system that are apparent to us, viewing it from the inside.

    It may be that externally to our system, there is a very simple explanation as to how the whole thing works, sadly we will never get to know.

    Something along the lines of : Universe = !NULL
  21. Mar 8, 2004 #20
    You are the first person who seems to understand what I'm looking for(perhaps you are intuitive as me).
    I don't believe in anything... but I believe in intuition of minds.
    I think that intuition goes beyond the limits of mind and of the system in which we are sinked. So I'm not so sure that we cannot get to know what is it from outside.
    After all, Newton and Einstein and other brilliant minds went far beyond the whole kowledge of their times. They had to be very much intuitive. Their theories were not derived from their studies: they were much more than a sistematization of known concepts.

    If you are intrested in my opinion (don't hesitate to close the conversation if it is boring to you), let me expose the first, and only ("primary" I say) antinomy from which I think the whole could be generated (ourselves included):
    [tex]\Rightarrow \emptyset[/tex]
    that reads: void (i.e. the missing element on the left of the implication sign) implicates the "empty set" (i.e. the intuitive concept of void). Please make an abstraction effort: words and symbols are not significant outside space-time frame.
    Since this sentence is equivalent to a null sentence (better it is equivalent to a non-written sentence) it has not to be enunciated by anyone: it is implicit in void itself... but implicates that void is really oscillating from nothingness and representation of nothingness (that is not obviously "nothingness").
    Such condition can be approximated, to mental level, hypothesizing an extreme (infinite) speed of calculation that conducts to an endless and continuous alternation of true-false states. In such context it is not decidable the truthfulness/falseness of the antinomy in a specific instant because the result of the calculation interrupted at any time would fairly be probable both truth or false.
    Now hypothesize a symmetrical implication towards one or more cohordinates. The hypothesis is legitimate because there is no “privileged way“ in which the implication can be revealed, therefore we suppose that an "Empty point" implicates an "empty spherical space" having the empty point of implication as center and any radius.
    Finally we define “Space“ the set of the implications that are invariant towards a particular symmetry in a point and we define “Time“ the set of expressions of that symmetry in that point, that we will define “Point of contraction“ or Space-time.
    I stop here... glad to be in contact with you.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook