What is the Nature of Photons?

[Entropee]

I don't think you will be satisfied with the answer. "Pure form of energy" is more of a science fiction concept than a scientific one. Science can say "a photon is the thing that behaves in this way (and then list its properties)", but it sounds like you will find that answer unsatisfactory.

Note that no matter what you are talking about, you can eventually get to this point. What is water? What is air? "Yes, but what is it really" is a question that ultimately has only the answer, "the thing with these properties".

I was going to reply to this thread but you took the words out of my mouth haha.
Lots of scientists are too afraid to admit "we don't really know" what a photon is, we know ALL about them, but have no idea what they are because we can't quite comprehend them, kind of like 1D.

 

[RUTA]

I'll beg to differ with science answering the question "why?". Yes, it's a small semantic point but a very important one. Science asks "how" not why. Why implies some unknown motivations. The sky is blue rather than red because blue was God's favorite color. How the sky appears blue is a different question, having to do with the scattering of light and HOW that occurs.

So for now there is light and how it behaves. Beyond that it's open season. Think of it like the old problem of the motion of the planets when the Earth is regarded as the center of the universe. You can develop complex mathematical systems that actually predict what is going on to a degree, but they are not the model you are looking for because the complexity keeps you from understanding. But a simple shift of point of view can suddenly produce the model that provides great insight into HOW it all works (not why!)

"The ideal of scientific explanation is a matter of logical deduction, given a unified set of deep explanatory principles that are themselves accepted, for the time being, without explanation. But of course the ideal of scientific explanation is one for ongoing improvement. Perhaps from the fundamental laws of microphysics, by some consistency criterion, it will turn out that the constants of nature are tightly constrained or even uniquely determined. But even then we would still have the task of explaining the laws themselves at a still more fundamental level. At some stage scientific explanations always turn into descriptions—‘that’s how it is folks’—there is no ultimate terminus in science for the awkward child who persists in asking why! I do not believe the aim of some self-vindicating a priori foundation for science is a credible one." Redhead, M. (1990). “Explanation” in Explanation and Its Limits, edited by Dudley Knowles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135-154.

 

[kote]

"I do not believe the aim of some self-vindicating a priori foundation for science is a credible one." Redhead, M. (1990). “Explanation” in Explanation and Its Limits, edited by Dudley Knowles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135-154.

Wait, what? If he is happy with science being arbitrary, answering no fundamental questions, and not serving any purpose... then how on Earth would he ever be in a position to write about science? I agree with everything said up until the last sentence. Whether he does science out of curiosity, for a paycheck, to be a good citizen, because he doesn't know what else to do... no matter what the reason, that reason is his self-vindicating a priori foundation without which he would have literally no reason to do any science at all.

The idea that we can do anything without some conscious or unconscious motivation is just unintelligible, as is the idea that we can seek scientific knowledge without some concept of what knowledge is and why we should have it.

 

[alxm]

Wait, what? If he is happy with science being arbitrary, answering no fundamental questions, and not serving any purpose...

That's not what he said at all. What he said is essentially "there will always be a 'why?'".

 

[ViewsofMars]

Replying to the question, "What exactually is a Photon?"

From NASA’s COSMICOPIA Glossary:
Proton
"The positively charged part of an atom. The number of protons determines which element the particle is. It is part of the nucleus."
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gloss_op.html

More about "Proton Composition" can be learned from the link below.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/compos.html#proton

I highly recommend NASA's COSMICOPIA Glossary. I like it. And I love NASA!

 

[RUTA]

That's not what he said at all. What he said is essentially "there will always be a 'why?'".

Exactly. I'm not sure I agree with Redhead on this point, but I do agree with a previous post that as of now, science provides "how" not "why." I think it's possible to avoid the dilemma posed by Redhead if, for example, we admit a priori that the entire enterprise is one of self-consistency. Then the ultimate expression would not be something "at the bottom," begging for justification from something yet "deeper," but a mathematical/formal articulation of the self-consistency criterion for the process as a whole.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Just wishing to add some depth to this conversation pertaining to the how, why, what, etc. Questions are often asked and scientists reply. (Review the "Ask a Scientist" archives.
http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/archive.htm).
A good example of such:

From Ask A Scientist from Astronomy Archive.

Why stars?
Author: chelsea
Why are there stars?

Response #: 1 of 1
Author: samuel p bowen
Good question. Matter attracts itself to other matter. So stuff collects
in blobs. If the blobs contain nuclei that can be transformed into more
stable nuclei and give off energy, then a star is formed. The star "burns"
the little nuclei of hydrogen and makes helium. The energy that is left
over makes starlight.
http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/Newton/askasci/1995/astron/AST153.HTM

 

[kote]

That's not what he said at all. What he said is essentially "there will always be a 'why?'".

Explain the sentence I actually objected to then. I agree with the part about how there will always be a why in science, and I said as much.

"I do not believe the aim of some self-vindicating a priori foundation for science is a credible one."​

Self-vindicating a priori is redundant. He might as well have said, "I do not believe the aim of a foundation for science is a credible one." Without a foundation there literally is no point.

 

[alxm]

Self-vindicating a priori is redundant. He might as well have said, "I do not believe the aim of a foundation for science is a credible one." Without a foundation there literally is no point.

First: No, it's not at all redundant. You're ignoring important words here and turning what was written into something else. What I believe he meant by "self-vindicating, a priori" is that, you cannot assume that the final 'axiom' of total reductionism (if such a thing is achievable) is actually 'self-evident'. Science cannot justify itself that way, and it cannot assume it will reach that conclusion. So what? Neither can math.

Second: There is no foundation, and that doesn't mean there isn't a point. Epistemology is no more a matter of 'fact' than any other metaphysics. There's no reason to believe that we can know anything to begin with. You can't refute the statement "You can't really know anything for sure". You can point to the fact that it's logically inconsistent (how could you be sure of that statement?), but on the other hand, there's no reason to assume things have to be logical. The fact that the universe does follow logic and self-consistency is itself an empirical observation.

That doesn't mean there isn't a point to Science. It means that piddling about with metaphysics is unproductive. Science cannot prove itself any more than Math can. (And famously, math has essentially proved it can't prove itself)

 

[RUTA]

Explain the sentence I actually objected to then. I agree with the part about how there will always be a why in science, and I said as much.

"I do not believe the aim of some self-vindicating a priori foundation for science is a credible one."​

Self-vindicating a priori is redundant. He might as well have said, "I do not believe the aim of a foundation for science is a credible one." Without a foundation there literally is no point.

Essentially, he's referring to the idea that scientists will find a bottom that justifies itself and, therefore, requires no "deeper" justification, i.e., there would be no more "why." For example, all theories of physics have a foundation, i.e., set of axioms/postulates at bottom. In special relativity, one of the postulates is "everyone measures the same speed of light, regardless of their relative motions." Now, despite the great successes realized by following the consequences of that assumption, many physicists still ask, "why is it that everyone measures the same speed of light?" It's an empirical fact and it "works," so why don't all physicists accept this postulate as "self-vindicating?" He's saying that he doesn't believe physicists will ever have a foundation that they accept as "self-vindicating," so that no matter what the foundation is at any given time, we will still want to know "why that particular foundation?"

 

[kote]

That doesn't mean there isn't a point to Science. It means that piddling about with metaphysics is unproductive. Science cannot prove itself any more than Math can. (And famously, math has essentially proved it can't prove itself)

The statement "science is productive" is a foundational a priori statement. The statement "there is a point to science" is an a priori statement that gives science a foundation. One cannot deny an a priori foundation of science without denying the statement "there is a point to science." Science doesn't give itself a point. It can't give itself a foundation. Its foundation must be a priori.

Self-vindicating and a priori are redundant in that a priori principles can be reduced to statements in which no deeper explanation is possible.

I agree with RUTA about what was probably actually meant.

 

[enotstrebor]

I beg to differ: science can answer quite a lot of 'why's. For example, it can answer why the sky is blue, why water is transparent, etc. In your case, the question of why the photon forms, and how it actually forms is well known (has been known for decades). The answer, unfortunately, must be given in terms of more advanced concepts which you may/may not have an intuitive understanding of, and the answers provided in the previous posts may have appeared mystifiying, as a result. But, I assure you, the 'why' the 'what' and 'how' of a photon is well known.

What is the behavior of the photon, for example as it effects matter is well understood and these behaviors are well modeled by the mathematics.

However, one can't even say if maxwell's equations or any other photon mathematical model, is the behavior of the photon or the behavior of the reaction to the photon.

One might note that the four dimensional E,B matrix has the same sign form as the four dimensional gyroscopic matrix. So these `fields' may actually be the two gyroscopic reaction modes of the particle to a single force (of course this requires another real spin like behavior from what is viewed as non-real spin object).

Once your recognize that all present models are interaction models without separate uniquely defined sources as opposed to uniquely defined situational behaviors (photon-photon, photon-matter, matter-matter) then you understand that the present models can not tell you what (what is the photon, what is the electron) and thus can not tell you how and thus can not say why.

 

[lightarrow]

Replying to the question, "What exactually is a Photon?"

Proton
"The positively charged ...

It was to test the readers' attention?

 

[ViewsofMars]

March 23, 2008 - NASA

Aurora From Space
What do auroras look like from space? From the ground, auroras dance high above clouds, frequently causing spectacular displays. The International Space Station (ISS) orbits just at the same height as many auroras, though. Therefore, sometimes it flies over them, but also sometimes it flies right through. The auroral electron and proton streams are too thin to be a danger to the ISS, just as clouds pose little danger to airplanes. ISS Science Officer Don Pettit captured a green aurora, pictured above in a digitally sharpened image. From orbit, Dr. Pettit reports, changing auroras can appear to crawl around like giant green amoebas. Far below, on planet Earth, the Manicouagan Impact Crater can be seen in northern Canada. Credit: Don Pettit, ISS Expedition 6, NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_44.html

The image is awesome. Be sure to click open that link. I like that mint tulip green.

Don't forget to read my messages 40 and 42 if you haven't already.

 

[Entropee]

that picture is amazing :O

 

[ViewsofMars]

Yeah, it's incrediable, and what a time to be alive. Check this out from The International Space Station. Click the music video on the upper right of their screen. I feel like I'm there with them ~ ~~ ~ Loving it..."We are the experiment"
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/index.htm

 

[Entropee]

yeah that was tight, i want to experience zero gravity someday..

 

[RUTA]

yeah that was tight, i want to experience zero gravity someday..

You could jump on a trampoline, you'd be experiencing zero g as soon as you left the surface on each jump. For a longer time at zero g you could do a bungee jump. There are some amusement park rides that give you a brief free fall experience.