I think these things are wrong becauseb they presume, without evide, that light is a entity whether a wave or particle. i think all they are showing is a energy push through a light FIELD. genesis is clear light is part of the universe unrelated to a source. The light is there already and just busting to get out. So the sun etc just explode and allow this light to get out.
No Hartung did a careful experiment and came up with a surprising result that adds to our understanding of photon momentum.
However, the answer that Hartung discovered through his experiment is—as is typical for quantum mechanics—more surprising. The electron not only receives the expected momentum, but additionally one third of the photon momentum that actually should have gone to the atom nucleus. The sail of the boat therefore “knows” of the impending accident before the cords tear and steals a bit of the boat’s momentum. To explain the result more precisely, Hartung uses the concept of light as an electro-magnetic wave: “We know that the electrons tunnel through a small energy barrier. In doing so, they are pulled away from the nucleus by the strong electric field of the laser, while the magnetic field transfers this additional momentum to the electrons.”
When a strong laser pulse induces the ionization of an atom, momentum conservation dictates that the absorbed photons transfer their momentum to the electron and its parent ion. The sharing of the photon momentum between the two particles and its underlying mechanism in strong-field ionization, occurring when the bound electron tunnels through the barrier created by the superposition of the atomic potential and the electric laser field, are still debated in theory after 30 years of research. Corresponding experiments are very challenging due to the extremely small photon momentum and their precision has been too limited, so far, to ultimately resolve this debate. the action of the light’s magnetic field on the electron while it is under the tunnel barrier, which has only been theoretically predicted so far, thereby disproving opposing predictions. Our results deepen the understanding of, for example, molecular imaging and time-resolved photoelectron holography.
didn’t say it wasn’t a careful thing. just the same thing as measuring.
It all means nothing unless FIRST they prove light is moving and thus made of something. i say its not moving and not made of stuff we know about. INSTEAD another energy is moving through light and this is what is being measured.
You certainly don’t know EM wave theory. You start with Maxwell equations and end up with the wave equation. Light is an EM wave. This experiment showed what the E field and the H field were doing. It was nice experiment with not so surprising results. The momentum has to go somewhere.
On one side stand a community of physicists who have conducted thousands of experiments that demonstrate and quantify the transfer of energy in the photoelectric effect. This community has now published new findings that show how the energy of the photon is transferred to the particles within an atom.
Moreover, this same community has conducted thousands of experiments that confirm a standard model of elementary particles. This model has both a strong empirical and mathematical foundation.
And on the other side stands …
Do you not realize, Robert, how much you could learn if you stopped and listened to others? I note that before I clicked the article link, no one else had clicked the link. That indicates that you almost certainly replied to the original post without even bothering to read the article that is the subject of the post.
Best,
Chris
We can all learn from each other. physics is a almost invisible thing. its open to new insights.
I have researched it and never find the evidence for why they say light is a thing that moves. One can always INSTEAD say a energy is moving through a light “field”. Then genesus strongly suggests this.
Its not my idea.
How about you? in as short a way as poosible WHY do you think light moves about? surely not because others said so! thats not science but trust . Einstein didn’t trust and said they were wrong though there were hundreds of physicists who were content with the accepted conclusions.
You don’t have a deep mathematical understanding of fields and waves. Without a deep understanding of Maxwell’s equation and the wave equation, you don’t understand light. At PS we discuss science. We can help you catch up in understanding the science, but we can’t water it down enough so that the science matches your beliefs. The science isn’t changed because of your beliefs. But with a better understanding of the science, your can get to a point where your beliefs are not in conflict with undisputed scientific understanding.
You are completely wrong in your understanding of the history, Robert. In 1904 physicists were not content with their existing theories, which were under heavy pressure from emerging experimental results. Einstein’s stochastic model of Brownian motion and his relativity models were therefore widely (though not universally) hailed as breakthroughs at their publication.
Physicists are not content today, either.
As Fermi put it, when you ask light a wave question, it gives you a wave answer. When you ask it a particle question, it gives you a particle answer. That’s why physicists describe light as having a dual nature: both wave and particle.
He spoke for a large community of scientists who had been collaborating for many decades to obtain ever-improving experimental results and explanatory models. That community has continued its hard work to today. I see no reason to insult their hard work and expertise by simply ignoring their findings and postulating my own ill-informed notions that could not even be expressed mathematically. That would be the ultimate hubris, and utterly disrespectful, too. It’s not a good look on someone like me who professes to follow a messiah who taught, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom.”
Best,
Chris
P.S. Physicists say light has a dual nature. That is hard for ordinary folks like me to grasp. At the same time, as a Christian I assert that Christ has a dual nature: fully God and fully human. My belief about Christ is probably easier for a physicist to grasp than for a philosopher.
I don’t think math is needed. its concepts first.PS is about science but most of your topics you introduce are on religion by my count. Anyways i only want science and not religious suvjects except where they cross. No catholic church stuff etc etc etc.
your most wrong. Einstein STRESSED how he had to overcome physists so much on ideas and others did. They were satisfied for the 1800’s and new experiments only a little bugged them. anyways thats not the point.
I’m saying that the reason for a unlikely concept of a dual nature is thats fundamentally wrong. its not a wave or particle because its nothing. light is not moving but insted the medium the energy is moving through. its only this other provocation that is being witnessed to move. now i’m doing studied speculation.
yet a dual nature in nature is rare or non existent. on a probability curve its unlikely there is such a thing.
so something else. reductionist concepts alone should suggest there is a error here.
Then genesis is the first clue.
How about you? you presume to chastise me about questioning presumptions THEN why do you think light is moving? Whats the evidence its light and not something that is tracing through light?