by crawler » Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:35 am
crawler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:17 pm
I reckon that Planck tells us that (1) amplitude is not important, or, (2) that amplitude duznt exist.
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:12 am
Well can you give a quote from Plank at least, instead of guessing what you think he says ?
1. If amplitude is not important, then why would every physics book say it is, as it amplifies the energy of the wave which is directly proportional with the square of its amplitude ?
2. If amplitude does not exist, then the wave does not exist. Because the wave becomes a straight line with no crests and throughs. This is basic wave physics, how on earth can you even imagine a wave without amplitude ? And keep in mind Plank's equation E=hf was developed for EM waves, not for photon particles. Einstein took his wave energy equation and applied it to his particle-wave photons.
I did not realise that Planck was referring to em waves, i thort he was referring to photons. Waves (eg em waves) of course depend on amplitude (re energy etc).
My photon theory is ok with (2).
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:12 amYes, because your photon does not exist (as a wave) so of course its amplitude does not exist either. But Einstein defined his photon as a particle-WAVE !! And a wave by definition must have an amplitude ! I am not debunking your photon quasi particle hole in an aether donut theory here. And as I said you should not name it a photon, because a photon is not what you say it is, its what Einstein said it is. And its a complete non-sense and pseudo scientific bullshit.
I am not sure what to think re the name photon (ie Einstein's photon)(& my photon). My photon is certainly not a wave.
But allow me to sneak in a bit of my theory which is not entirely off topic. I say that an atom consists of photons orbiting a nucleus (not electrons orbiting a nucleus). And, i say that conductors have photons hugging their surface, these huggons flying around at the speed of light. So, photons impacting a surface bump (can bump) huggons off the surface. The huggons, when they jump off the surface, form loops (they bite their own tail), & we call (can call) these looped photons (free) electrons. Free electrons can live on a surface, in which case they are still free electrons (what we call static electricity).
[quote=crawler post_id=9872 time=1707945478 user_id=30412]
I reckon that Planck tells us that (1) amplitude is not important, or, (2) that amplitude duznt exist.[/quote] [quote=mariuslvasile post_id=9877 time=1707955927 user_id=1000000342]
Well can you give a quote from Plank at least, instead of guessing what you think he says ?
1. If amplitude is not important, then why would every physics book say it is, as it amplifies the energy of the wave which is directly proportional with the square of its amplitude ?
2. If amplitude does not exist, then the wave does not exist. Because the wave becomes a straight line with no crests and throughs. This is basic wave physics, how on earth can you even imagine a wave without amplitude ? And keep in mind Plank's equation E=hf was developed for EM waves, not for photon particles. Einstein took his wave energy equation and applied it to his particle-wave photons. [/quote]I did not realise that Planck was referring to em waves, i thort he was referring to photons. Waves (eg em waves) of course depend on amplitude (re energy etc).
[quote]My photon theory is ok with (2).[/quote] [quote=mariuslvasile post_id=9877 time=1707955927 user_id=1000000342]Yes, because your photon does not exist (as a wave) so of course its amplitude does not exist either. But Einstein defined his photon as a particle-WAVE !! And a wave by definition must have an amplitude ! I am not debunking your photon quasi particle hole in an aether donut theory here. And as I said you should not name it a photon, because a photon is not what you say it is, its what Einstein said it is. And its a complete non-sense and pseudo scientific bullshit.[/quote]I am not sure what to think re the name photon (ie Einstein's photon)(& my photon). My photon is certainly not a wave.
But allow me to sneak in a bit of my theory which is not entirely off topic. I say that an atom consists of photons orbiting a nucleus (not electrons orbiting a nucleus). And, i say that conductors have photons hugging their surface, these huggons flying around at the speed of light. So, photons impacting a surface bump (can bump) huggons off the surface. The huggons, when they jump off the surface, form loops (they bite their own tail), & we call (can call) these looped photons (free) electrons. Free electrons can live on a surface, in which case they are still free electrons (what we call static electricity).