Banner
    Quantum Perspective On The Non-Existence Of Light
    By Sascha Vongehr | February 9th 2011 04:05 AM | 52 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum physics, in theory as well as experiment, are extremely concerned with light. This comes directly from the fact that light does not exist as an independent entity – it is plain interaction.

    I explained already how relativity makes light’s non-existence obvious. Today, I will tell you why that odd seeming fact only confirms what is known from entirely unrelated quantum mechanics: non-quantum relativity and non-relativistic quantum physics both agree on that light itself does not exist for entirely different reasons!

    The quantum aspect which confirms the insight gotten from relativity I hope to discuss best as follows, but I may well fail to reach most readers. Quantum mechanics goes beyond what most people are willing to believe. No didactic can overcome that.

    Let me first try to convince you that even your average cat is a quantum system. I will assume that you know and accept quantum physics at least in so far as that the uncertainty in momentum Δp and the uncertainty in position Δx cannot both be arbitrarily small: Their product Δx Δp is larger than a fundamental limit. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. The following consideration may explain this somewhat more:

    We cannot find out the positions of the constituents of bound systems. For example, determining the position x of an electron inside a certain atom means forcing the electron into a situation characterized by a small position uncertainty Δx. This provides it with large uncertainty in momentum Δp. Those constituents that thus acquire large momentum p fly out of the previously bound system.

    Definitively NOT a Photon!

    Put differently: knowing where they are inside of the bound system gives them more energy than their mutual binding energy. Trying to pin down all a cat’s particles’ locations would require us to interact so invasively as to destroy the cat; it would literally explode in a bright flash.

    We do not remove the moon from earth’s orbit by observing both celestial bodies’ positions. The difference between the moon-earth system and the electron-nucleus system, i.e. the atom, is the amount of system internal interaction, or their total action A. This will become much clearer further below.

    If we try to locate an electron inside an atom, once we succeed to localize the electron in a small, classically meaningful location, it does already, by the very fact alone of it being classically meaningful as an individual particle, not belong to the atom any more.

    Loosely speaking in the terminology of quantum modal realism, which is in physics the Everett relative state description, which is in turn also sometimes called ‘multiple worlds (or minds) interpretation' (not "multiverse"): Our measurement of the electron being at x equals the ‘branch’ Bx coming out of its interference with all other branches Bx of the quantum universe, in each of which the electron is in another place x’.

    An atom is the nucleus interacting with all branches’ electrons at once (in a very loose sense). Take one branch out, and the atom transforms into a nucleus plus an electron. This is related to the fact that all observation is fundamentally interaction. The moon’s own internal interactions are enormously many; it kind of observes itself. The electron has few internal interactions, perhaps none.

    The overall action A of a system or process is a measure for its from outside observation independent reality or identity. Technically speaking, if the interaction dA exceeds the total action A of the system, the system has been completely changed; it has become a different thing. Since interaction is quantized, systems with little internal action A basically exist only for whatever observes them. The observation, if it interacts strongly enough, changes them to such a large degree that one may as well speak about the destruction of one system and the construction of another.

    Quantum mechanics is all about that the minimum interaction is one interaction quantum dA = ħ (pronounced h-bar, value about 10-34Js, also called ‘reduced Planck constant’). Why this strange constant? Well, our traditional units are all messy from the historical detours that got us where we are today. That is also why I do not get deeper into either units or numerical values. For all I care, it is equal to 1 bit of ‘fundamental knowledge’ or some such.

    The extreme case is the quantized amount of light, called the photon or ‘light particle’. The photon’s action A is exactly one interaction quantum ħ. This defines the photon in the first place. Photons in this sense do not exist at all: they are completely exhausted by a single interaction quantum dA. They are only the interaction, the observation, but nothing by themselves.

    Reformulated for clarity: ħ being the smallest interaction means that a system has to change by at least ħ if it is observed. Two successive observations of ‘the same system’ must differ by at least ħ. If the whole system has only action ħ, obviously there is nothing left unchanged at all after a single observation. In other words, it was nothing but the interaction, namely the interaction with the object that ‘emitted the photon’, the observation of it.

    That there is nothing but the interaction is precisely what we expect from the discussion about light in relativity.

    The next post in this series explains why the obsession of fundamental science with a measure that "does not exist", is unsurprising.

    Comments

    where is my cat ?

    This is a worthy effort to explain a difficult topic. In reading such articles, always wonder: Have I truly learned something, or only achieved the illusion of understanding? In either case, scientific progress continues and we can hope that the apparent large-small conflict will someday be satisfactorily resolved.

    "The photon’s action A is exactly one interaction quantum ħ. This defines the photon in the first place. Photons in this sense do not exist at all: they are completely exhausted by a single interaction quantum dA."

    Completely, colossally, conceptually, incorrect. It's true that a photon carries energy ħω and angular momentum ħ. But similar statements can be made for an electron. An electron also carries energy ħω, and angular momentum ħ/2, and likewise for quarks or gluons, or any other type of quantum including quasi-particles like phonons. This is what we mean by a quantum. To say that a photon "carries action ħ" is simply not true.

    You've based your argument that photons do not exist on the fact that when photons interact they are always either created or destroyed, and in between those two events it is impossible to observe them, hence they "do not exist of themselves." Well, this is not true either -- you forgot the gravitational interaction. There's a Feynman diagram in which a graviton strikes a photon and does not destroy it, merely changes its momentum. So it can be interacted with mid-flight, and in this sense certainly does "exist." The same is true of any particle that carries energy. (Or do you not believe in the existence of gravitons either?)

    vongehr
    No, your comparison with the electron is not valid. You can actually observe one. Don't know how you want to observe a photon with help of virtual particles that are not even part of standard accepted physics. (No, we do not know if gravity is trivially quantized - if we knew, we would not need to look so hard anymore for the unification of QM and gravity. Never forget, general relativity tells us that gravity is not even a force but the curvature of space-time.)
    I might be mistaken, but all you seem to have concluded is that bosons are not matter, which is not news. Does it not seem like a matter of semantics whether you can say only things made of fermions 'exist'?

    vongehr
    I do not see what any of this has to do with bosons. 4-He atoms are bosons.
    MikeCrow
    I would think that the graviton wouldn't interact directly with a photon, and why would it, it's not a charged particle.
    The graviton would have to act on space-time. So if light follows a piece of fiber optical cable from refraction, what is bending light in curved space-time?
    Are em fields distorted in curved st? Doesn't that imply that there's something there?
    Never is a long time.
    vongehr
    I would think that the graviton wouldn't interact directly with a photon
    That depends on your theory. In string theory, the graviton is a closed string; not very mysterious in that sense. Since light paths are (spatially) curved by gravitation (e.g. around the sun, where it has been experimentally confirmed), once you model gravitation 'semi-classically' as a force, it should interact with the force carrier.
    If by "wouldn't interact directly" you mean to imply the very issue of force in the GR description to be curvature of space-time rather than directly force, well then you need to firstly question the graviton (as a force carrier) as a consistent description in this framework.
    I like your idea. I've had some similar thoughts and since I'm not trained in physics and am probably not grasping something fundamental, I was hoping that you'd take a look and either comment on my articles or respond here. By 'you', I mean the author and anyone else interested.

    My articles are mostly questions and 'ponderings' but one of the main questions is about whether or not light actually moves. Is light not like gravity, a fundamental aspect of spacetime? Also, if the planck length is the smallest observable unit, could individual planck spaces have different volumes and densities from one another even though we would only be able to perceive a normal planck space? If so, could the curvature of spacetime, entanglement, and dark energy be derived from an equation that would describe this changing space?

    http://jcatom.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/01/1598347-friction-of-time

    http://jcatom.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/28/2212654-dt

    http://jcatom.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/04/2071566-questions-zero-point...

    Been writing about this for a few years now. Would really like to hear what makes sense and what doesn't.

    vongehr
    I was not ignoring you. I actually went and looked at your posts, but have no comment except that there is in every post too much mentioned in confused ways (in my humble opinion) that it would need too many comments to even treat one post. You may like to concentrate more on small, isolated aspects and get to really understand them from a certain point of view. I know, it is difficult, because all hangs together, but it is necessary to come up with a question that has not been asked before.
    Would really like to hear what makes sense and what doesn't.
    Yea - me too. We all would like. But this is not how it works. I recommend to stop wishing for this. The only way this ever ends up is in believing, which is the opposite of what you were looking for. As age progresses, the temptation growths to just go with something instead of dying in doubt. This is even a prerequisite to becoming famous and respected by large audiences looking for somebody confident, somebody who knows what makes sense and what not. I have come to the conclusion that I will likely die without knowing the answer to a single question that I really like to know.
    Thanks for the response. I understand that it's mostly just a bunch of ideas. What about a single one like this: Gravity is the curvature of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing distortion of space and, therefore, spacetime.

    Light is a detectable disturbance of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing friction with time.

    I know that friction with time is kind of a poetic way of giving this idea, but it seems that c is kind of equal to the speed of time.

    MikeCrow
    JCAtom,
    I can see which way you're headed, and have a slightly different idea.

    The resistance to the acceleration of mass, inertial or gravitational, and the difference in the rate of time at different accelerations are due to space and time's orientation changing as space-time is bent.

    So I don't see it as a friction, more that 'gravity' is from mass 'sliding'( or possibly flowing with time) down a slopped time dimension, and inertia is pushing mass up the slope.
    Never is a long time.
    vongehr
    What about a single one like this:
    You need to learn how to count. ;-)
    1) Gravity is the curvature of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing distortion of space and, therefore, spacetime.
    Well, with much poetic license and good will, this is nothing else but what general relativity is all about, namely space-time being curved consistently with regard to its energy-momentum 'content'. If you say "causing distortion of space and, therefore, spacetime" you however already went down into a certain preferred reference frame, which you may do of course, but many would regard that as to be missing the whole point of relativity.

    2) Light is a detectable disturbance of spacetime and is caused by mass...it is the force that becomes evident when massive objects exist...causing friction with time.
    WTF? No, please do not try to explain this any further.

    3) c is kind of equal to the speed of time.
    Speed is a rate, i.e. some change df over time dt. The 'speed of time' is exactly dt/dt=1, which is trivially true regardless of whether there is relativity or anything. There is no second parallel time to let time flow. I recommend you first really understand special relativity in terms of a sober, non-mystic concept of time (= measure of changes inside a system) before already jumping into general relativity, strings and all that. I am afraid that if you still are worried about the flow of time, you do not yet grasp the main core, and it is vital to even begin to understand GR.

    The first part is just stating general relativity, the point is that light seems like an 'aspect' of spacetime that becomes noticeable because of mass...similar to gravity. I'm comparing light to gravity. We think of gravity as a curvature of space. I'm saying that maybe light is a similar distortion of time. Your 2) is my main point. I know that your 1) is GR.

    The part about c being equal to the speed of time is drawing on the idea that, for light, the universe is over as soon as it has begun, how does light actually move through space if it doesn't move through time? It's just our perception of space and time that causes this because we do move through space and time...we encounter light because of some other event in spacetime that we meet along our way through time and space. It takes time for light to come to us from some other place in the universe, but from light's 'perspective,' it was there the whole time. We measure our speed relative to c do we not?

    vongehr
    We measure our speed relative to c do we not?
    No, we do not. We measure it relative to other objects like the average microwave background.
    I thought everything with mass moves at some speed relative to c and everything without mass moves at c.

    vongehr
    I think it is time we stop talking as if we talk about physics and start seriously talking about the importance of meaningful, mutually agreed upon (between many scientists) terminology. 'A moves relative to B' is well defined. I kind of see what you mean with 'moving relative to c', but no, this is going too far. Although I accept the importance of the aspect that you try to convey with it, I am aware of more important aspects that make this kind of wording just completely misleading. Again, as I said above, try to really understand the core of special relativity (e.g. that every object moves with c 'relative to c') first before trying philosophy.
    Ladislav Kocbach
    I do not know what to make out of this! There are textbooks and monographs investigating the quantized electromagnetic  field in cavities, and they claim that they do non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The light (or in fact some far infrared or even high end RF)  there might be in the form of standing waves, it is not going anywhere. So it is there, it is sort of real, you can work with it without even thinking about relativity, you must use quantum mechanics for some toys you put in there (like atomic beams) and it is all exciting physics. The light is not there as "simply interaction", it definitely "exist as an independent entity", at least for a long while.
    What is the point of "proving" first that "light does not exist", then specify it as "light does not exist as an independent entity", and perhaps the next entry is going to say: 
    O.K. so light does exist, just kidding. But all this definitely makes traffic - 63 comments first , now 7 - this is 70 comments and counting.

    At some sites every comment would load more ads and earn more money. There I would understand the purpose of these entries - it does not seem to work like that here.

    vongehr
    The light (or in fact some far infrared or even high end RF) there might be in the form of standing waves, it is not going anywhere.
    Neither is the static field between two charges. What is your point? EM field = virtual particles or something? All of this would just stress the point I make, namely that the light is all interaction (e.g. between the RF cavity walls) and nothing over and beyond that.
    The light is not there as "simply interaction", it definitely "exist as an independent entity", at least for a long while.
    Interaction is a valid entity. Interaction certainly exists. Not sure what you mean by 'simply' interaction. I get the feeling this is just about a kind of religious involvement with terminology like 'exist'. Bill also seems to be very worried about this, and it may be a generation thing where you guys had to convince your time of virtual particles being real or whatever. I am beyond these issues. I have no problem with for example relative state description of QM and modal realism. Existence as an individual entity (by and for itself) needs internal interaction, i.e. action A. Physical existence of a system (rather than of an abstraction like war or interaction) is basically a measure that increases along with A/dA, where dA is your observation/interaction of it.

    The many comments - yes, it is sad that people get all religious about nothing and come in their pants if Einstein is mentioned (I do not understand how you would come precisely to my posts to complain about exploitation of that - you seem to bark up the wrong tree especially given other recent posts here on Science2.0). I would be happy if there were this much interest on actually important posts, like about the war on drug deeply impacting all of us. But what can I do? Force people to first comment there before they can comment here? Well, lets try. You go comment there or I will delete your comment here in three days, how is that?
    If light is "real" it would be able to react to itself. And in reality it does not show this behaviour in a logical sense.

    Two coherent beams of light for instance, crossing one anothers path only show an "apparent" reaction leading to 'empty' space or 'constructive' or 'destructive' interference patterns. Any involved light beam here continues its path completely undisturbed after the crossing event. As if the "event" did not happen at all. This makes this universe complex in its behaviour.

    That is because we as observers are not able to escape from these causal events. Because we are part of it, too.

    Sad news? No, not really - we can make valuable use of this knowledge after all. But we must deal with seemingly non-logical events. And quantum dynamics deal with these problems very well.

    Aitch
    Aha! I get it.....What your saying, Sascha, is light is not emitted....then there's hope for this long unidentified Bell Labs story then....Dark Suckers

    http://www.theatrecrafts.com/humour_darksuckers.html

    Aw, ....not what you had in mind, ....ah well.....enjoy ;-)

    Aitch
    blue-green
    I have a question about the whole increments of angular momentum that a photon transports. I imagine that the angular momentum originates from something giving up this whole quantity and it ends when a photon (not necessarily the same one, since you wouldn’t know the difference) gives its h-bar all back to a detector, for instance. With some effort, I can imagine how circularly polarized photons can transport angular momentum. I am having difficulty seeing how a linearly polarized photon would bring  angular momentum to an interaction. Mathematically, I know that one can use clockwise and counterclockwise circularly polarized photons as a Basis to create any combination of linear or elliptical polarizations and vice versa. Physically, it doesn’t make much sense to me how a horizontally polarized photon can have angular momentum. In my brevity here, I have neglected any mention of ensembles, preparations and all that fun … at the foundations … (It is worth noting again that Planck’s irreducible quantum of interaction has the same physical units as angular momentum … aka spin.) I apologize if clearing up the rôle of polarization is unrelated. I realize that it just a spin-1 symmetry (as in rotating a camera’s polarizing filter 180 degrees bring it back to its previous state). A more pertinent question is the rôle of Everett’s branching. It is not clear that it is necessary for your argument. As you know, the thesis adviser for Everett’s original paper was John Wheeler. Thirty years later, Wheeler’s summary of quantum physics is as focused on the rôle of interaction as is yours. When Wheeler insists that “no elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is brought to a close by an irreversible act of registration” he is implying that what happens in-between is for all practical purposes non-existent. Wheeler wrote so many times without every appealing to Everett’s vision.< Wasn't it Wheeler and a earlier student he advised who teamed up to create a completely accurate theory of electromagnetic interactions without using any light? Just emitters and absorbers ...?
    vongehr
    when a photon ... gives its h-bar all back to a detector
    I think the whole first part of your question is already answered by just accepting that the photon does not 'exist'. The emitter gives exactly the angular momentum to the absorber that the absorber gains. Total momenta stay conserved; no spinning green little ball going in between.
    the role of Everett’s branching
    Everett employed the term 'branch' to the respective pairs of relative states. Not sure whether you mean anything beyond that, like the confused 'multiple worlds interpretation' and its 'real branching', whatever that could mean (objective impossibility of branch re-interference would be non-linear QM, but the MWI people deny that - go figure). If we stay with linear QM as it has been observed and tested, the connection ('role') would be that in all branches the overall angular momentum is conserved and the exchange that happened is always an integer number of h-bars.
    colinkeenan
    "The overall action A of a system or process is a measure for its from outside observation independent reality or identity."

    I can't quite figure out what you're saying the overall action is.  Normally I'm not too worried when reading sentences that have extra or missing commas, dashes, word(s), but the fact that I can't figure out how to fix this sentence means that I don't understand what it's trying to say in the first place.

    In particular, shouldn't there be a word between "its" and "from", or should the word "from" be removed?  (Or, as I realize in the end, maybe there should be a dash between "from" and "outside".)

    Should there be be a dash between "observation" and "independent", or should it be a comma?  I'm thinking a dash so that the word "or" is equating "observation-independent reality" and "identity".  And, with that, maybe the sentence can be easily fixed as follows:

    "The overall action A of a system or process is a measure for its outside observation-independent reality or identity."

    I've removed "from" and put a dash in.  Not much of a change, but I'm not sure it's right.  Is that what you are saying?

    Thinking about it some more, maybe this is a better fix:

    "The overall action A of a system or process is a measure for its from-outside observation-independent reality or identity."

    Where now, the word "or" is defining "identity" as the "from-outside observation-independent reality", and the whole sentence is equating a measure of identity of a system or process with the overall action of it.

    Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying in that sentence.  No missing or extra words (in fact amazingly perfect choice of words), but just missing a couple of dashes.  Have I understood your sentence about what action is?
    vongehr
    This we Germans will never understand. What is not to be understood by putting two or three of those 'its' and 'from' and 'outside' type of thingies together? It is really hard to avoid it if oneself just does not see any problem at all and nobody ever can explain the difficulty. It is independent from the observation by anything in its environment (but never independent of the observation that goes on inside of it, like when the proton 'observes' the electron, which is of course vital for the atom). Should have maybe written "its from externally originating observation" or "its by observation with the environment ...".
    I like "its from in the environment originating ..."
    "its from in the" - I love it! See, this is why nobody in their right mind reads Kant, Hegel, or even Marx in the original.
    colinkeenan
    Thanks for clarifying, and I think you do see the confusion of course caused by that type of phrasing.  Here then is the simple way to "fix" the sentence to reduce confusion:

    The overall action A of a system or process is a measure for its reality or identity, independent of observation from outside.
    blue-green
    (Sorry for all the edits to strip out the formatting that Science 2.0 tries to insert. A big meow to Hank! A little scary how Google combs through this each night.). Quote: “If we stay with linear QM as it has been observed and tested ….” Yes, linear is good. Linear is sufficient at fundamental levels. As I hinted above, this whole business of giving photons a less-than-real status has legs and some history. Below is a quote taken from Wheeler’s autobiography. Apologies for the length, and yet one can see bits and pieces in it of what Sascha has been writing here for some time. It’s a bit of a wake up call. [begin quote] I kept thinking about the question whether there is not some simpler approach that can skirt the complexities of the infinite jumbo of virtual particles. … My vision during the 1930s and 1940s was of a world made only of simple particles—perhaps only electrons and positrons—even though I saw no way to construct that world. A related vision was of a world in whichparticles could interact without the intermediary field, since all of the nasty mathematical difficulties of quantum theory seemed to be associated with fields. Dick Feynman and I pushed this latter vision to its logical limit,working in fits and starts as time permitted during World War II and completing the work after the war. … I knew that if an electron and a positron were to be crowded together in subnuclear dimensions, some way would have to be found to get around the prediction of conventional theory that they would quickly radiate away their energy in the form of electromagnetic fields. Perhaps, I thought, an action-at-a-distance version of electromagnetic theory—one without fields—might explain the suppression of such radiation… earlier theorists had discovered the remarkable fact that to work without fields, it is necessary to consider “advanced” as well as “retarded” effects. This means that some signals arrive elsewhere before the action that initiated them—seemingly a nonsensical idea!—and some arrive after. … Einstein invented special relativity as a way—the only way—to assure the complete validity and self-consistency of Maxwell’s equations … among the solutions to [Maxwell’s] equations of electromagnetism are ones in which effects arrive at one place before they start from another. The starling conclusion that Dick Feynman and I reached, which I still believe to be correct, is that if there were only a few chunks of matter in the universe—say only Earth and the Sun, or a limited number of other planets and stars—the future would, indeed, in reality, affect the past. What prevents this violation of common sense and experience is the pretense in the universe of a nearly infinite number of other objects containing electric charge, all of which can participate in a grand symphony of absorption and reemission of signals going both forward and backward in time. The mathematics told the twoof us that in the real world, the myriad of signals headed back in time, apparently to influence the past, miraculously cancel out, producing no net effect. … Of course, no miracles are involved. It only seems that way. The conclusions are all there in the equations, waiting to be ferreted out. … I was even dreaming of applying the idea of action at a distance to Einstein’s general relativity theory. To realize this dream would require “sweeping away” the spacetime that connects events, just as Feynman and I had swept away the electric and magnetic fields that connect charged particles. [end quote]
    Hank
    (Sorry for all the edits to strip out the formatting that Science 2.0 tries to insert.
    Actually, we strip out the various fonts and colors and sizes you try to use in MS Word or whatever your tool is you copy and paste from.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    "My vision during the 1930s and 1940s was of a world made only of simple particles."

    This was a toy model that went nowhere. Certainly Wheeler and Feynman never followed up on it. A toy model by definition captures some aspects of a problem while ignoring others. Note the date - 70 years ago. At that time no one knew how to handle relativistic fields, so Feynman said let's pretend there aren't any and see how far we get. By the time he got the Nobel prize, of course, he had put them back in.
    The one important thing they did learn from this model was the advanced / retarded stuff that eventually led to the correct handling of antiparticles. (The idea that antiparticles "go backwards in time" is another popular misconception that I hope we don't take off on.)

    vongehr
    The idea that antiparticles "go backwards in time" is another popular misconception that I hope we don't take off on.
    Neither are there any particles that 'go forward in time' either, and that one is a much more widespread misconception. ;-)
    blue-green
    Yes, Helen, that is what I do. What actually comes out is hard to get right without several tries (there are still errors in my quote up there, and with Google linking to it, I ought to get it right). With each edit, I probably cause all of you dear readers to get yet another email that there has been a change here. It’s kind of embarrassing for a cat used to walking around softly. I was just yanking on Hank’s chain … to make him appear … cat and mouse like. With all the yammering I’m doing, I might as well add that when I wrote above that the additional solutions to Dirac’s Equations have negative energies, it might be better to phrase that as negative frequencies. Either way, it is interesting how often additional solutions to algebraic equations, or Maxwell’s equations, or Dirac’s or Einstein’s have led to the discovery of real and concrete entities …. as with the positrons … however they move. edit: I see now my time is up for making any more edits to the quote. It has a few words mashed together and and some spell checker changing an intended presence to pretense ....
    vongehr
    Write in MS word, paste it into the rich editor, switch to the simple editor, delete the junk at the top ("normal ...") and the unintended line breaks, switch back to rich text editor, where there will now be unintended mergers ("...editor,switch ..." or "backto") that were not even near the removed line breaks, finally click "post comment" twice (once is somehow not enough). Then edit what is still not right, like often there being no space after a picture. Add a space in the rich editor and in the simple one (via HTML) repeatedly only to find that it just does not appear in the published version. I have not figured that one out yet. All in all, I think this is acceptable given so many different software systems and browsers. If it did perfect, we would complain about something else.
    Hank
    It would be nice to have the resources of Google - with blogspot.com, they can make everything compatible because they have basically unlimited money.  Wordpress has the same issues we do, people just don't have anyone to write to, and the only other public domain editor we could use is even worse.    For truly avant garde users markup language or just HTML is fine but for the more casual science writers a rich text editor is needed.

    But at least if people complain, we know it's being used.   That's better than the alternative.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Write in MS word, paste it into the rich editor, switch to the simple editor, delete the junk at the top ("normal ...") and the unintended line breaks, switch back to rich text editor, where there will now be unintended mergers ("...editor,switch ..." or "backto") that were not even near the removed line breaks, finally click "post comment" twice (once is somehow not enough).
    No, write in MS word, select the text and choose the 'clear formatting' option in the box usually on the LHS of the font box (if necessary then correct the font and font size) then paste it into the 'Plain Editor', not the Rich text Editor as you have said above, then switch back to Rich Text Editor and sort out any line break formatting problems that may still exist, there shouldn't be any junk to delete doing it this way. Click on preview once or twice as required to check what it looks like before posting and then try to make sure that it's not trollipop that will be deleted, then click 'post comment' once!
    Make love not war
    vongehr
    Iff you do not want the HTML links to work that is.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    True, you do lose them, but they're really easy to put in afterwards :)
    Make love not war
    Hank
    It doesn't require an elaborate process but something in his word processor adds in things like...
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>



    Normal

    0





    </xml><![endif]-->



    ... that is Microsoft craziness, but there are limits to what we can automatically strip out without taking other stuff with it so it remains an imperfect system.




    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    blue-green
    Writing for me is a challenging process. I am near 9000 feet and near the focus of a parabola of mountains ringed around me … Continental Divide to the East, North and South. Cosmic showers make things jumpy … and new thoughts wink in and out like a virtual field… Several times today my wireless Internet connection has vanished just as I was trying to do something … it’s all documented in Hank’s records. It’s better than in the 90s when I had to dial long distance to get on. I’d cut and paste in a few seconds and then bail. Enough about me … let’s get back to physics.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Wow, Blue-green you sound like the opposite of a cat on a hot tin roof, freezing at 9000 feet and being bombarded with cosmic showers! I think its amazing that you are making any posts at all from where you are. I hope you keep up the good posts, who cares about a few duff characters in that situation? I'm surprised you can think straight, the last time I went to somewhere near those heights I couldn't stop laughing, but it was great fun experiencing altitude sickness or whatever it was.
    Make love not war
    Hank
     Several times today my wireless Internet connection has vanished just as I was trying to do something … it’s all documented in Hank’s records.
    What records?   Advertisers get some non-personally identifiable information from you (cookies) but we are pretty careful about about privacy.   That's why in instances where people have accidentally deleted articles we can't restore them.   We do make a backup so if something has been around a while and disappeared we can restore it, though and we have autosave for articles that has a restore point - but otherwise, we have no records.   I built v1 of this thing in my den at night, there was no thought of records, I just wanted a place for people to write.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    blue-green
    Hank, that is not what I am talking about in terms of records. I was referring instead to the logs that web server’s can generate. It may well be that your ISP has logging turned off because the temporary files are too big and awkward. It happened to my business web site 5 or 7 years ago. (I started it in 1996 with 400 pages on its first day (with long-distance dial-up.) The log files were taking up more space than the entire website … and I didn’t have any software to process the 300 megabyte files. My ISP did, but he removed it. My site is way simpler than yours. No ads, no cookies and very few outside links. There can be a lot of information in a server’s log files which can direct one’s attention as to where one might shorten processing times … I’m sure you know enough about the underlying codes to manage your child without this feedback … just as I know what to put on my site to maintain quality traffic without having any tracking or logs. Meow.
    javaquantron
    We know that local mechanics are Einsteinian Mechanics and nonlocal mechanics are Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics.Because of we can not combine Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.They have different logical foundations. The light of Theory of Relativity isn't same with the light of Quantum Mechanics.Namely the quantization of Quantum Mechanics is nonlocal ,But we haven't a local quantization for Theory of Relativity.I have studied on local quantization for this mechanics.Best Regards.Cebrail Hasimi
    Sukumar
    I'm not sure I get the point of this post. While light indeed has a special status in special relativity (apropos your previous article), it is not so in quantum mechanics. The arguments you have made here apply equally well to any massless particle. Would you then deny them all any "existence"? It seems to me a rather limited view of "existence" but, what the heck, it's not a scientifically defined term anyway (except in mathematical existence proofs)! There are several particles that have been invented by physicists merely to serve as "carriers" of some gauge field, because physicists of today do not like to speak in terms of "spooky" actions at a distance.
    Sukumar
    Sukumar
    Actually the special relativitistic argument too would apply to any "particle" or interaction traveling at the speed of light.
    Sukumar
    vongehr
    Funny how you write about massless particles and interactions as if there are hundreds of them. In fact, if you are looking for truly (~ can be observed 'rather directly' ~ 'exist' - I am unwilling to get into a useless discussion about these words) massless ones [i.e. without caveats like asymptotic freedom, removing virtual dressings, over-interpreting the standard model (neutrinos do have mass - I knew that 30 years ago)], then how many are there? Exactly one, namely light.
    Sukumar
    Conceded, but I find it disingenous that you are "unwilling to get into a useless discussion about words" such as 'exist' when you started out entitling your piece "Quantum Perspective On The Non-Existence Of Light." Many physicists of yore made a big deal about objects not having any real existence except by virtue of measurement or interaction with the Observer (thereby serving to confuse generations of students, physicists, philosophers and lay people alike with positivist arguments abut trees falling in forests when no one is around to observe); so I find it rather perverse that you would now turn around and claim that something doesn't exist because it does so only by virtue of the aforesaid interaction!
    Sukumar
    vongehr
    disingenous ... made a big deal about objects ... confuse generations of students, physicists, philosophers and lay people alike ... perverse ...
    This is why I do not want to discuss about it. People get their dogmatic pants all knotted in a twist if one discusses questions about what 'really truly exist' and what 'really is truly real'. Quantum physics implies that modal terminology (exist/possible) needs an update like temporal terminology (past/future) got via relativity. Relativizing (relative synchronicity, relative state description) is one part of it but insufficient (there is more than the past and future light cones!). I enjoy educating about this but not the holy battle for realism that some think is provoked.
    Improving terminology is important and not "a useless discussion about words", true, but in a blog's comment section, any attempt at such will always disintegrate fast into a useless fight about words.
    I believe I have sufficiently explained what "non-existence" here refers to.
    Well spoken, sir

    rholley
    This is causing questions to formulate in my mind, for example “how does one specify the total action of a single hydrogen atom?”

    It was Eddington (again) who first put me on to action, in the sense used here.  Here’s what I wrote about it on this site, two years ago.

    Get A Slice Of The Least Action!


    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    vongehr
    how does one specify the total action
    Good question. Often, it is not clear what the total action of the system at hand is, say of the moon. A system existing relative to itself means to have internal observations (= interactions), i.e. an atom in a stable ground state may not interact with the outside at all, still it has internal action via the nucleus and electron interacting (observing each other). This of course brings in the difficulty that if one cannot (yet or on principle) look into a particular system (e.g. the electron), how can we know whether there are interactions. The simplest is the harmonic oscillator. It makes an orbit in phase space, an ellipse in X x P, the area of which is its action.
    blue-green
    While our host is off proving the non-existence of the gods, I’ll chime in about how Feynman brought the Principle of Least Action down to something that can be derived, instead of assumed. Feynman revisited Hero’s interpretation of how light takes the shortest distance from a source to a shiny surface and into to your eye. Feynman boldly assumed that there need not be an a priori reason or wisdom for light to take a path of least action. He instead assumed that light is independent of reason and takes advantage of every imaginable path available to it, and even paths beyond imagination. Feynman assumed that there was no a priori reason for light to have any preferences. Each option is equally available and equally weighted in a grand sum that includes all of them. More technically, one sums up the complex number valued quantum amplitude of every path. Each of these complex numbers is like the hand on a clock. You summed up all of the hand or phase positions, and just as Feynman had seen cancellations before in his earlier work with no paths, here again, there are a great many cancellations in the sense that for almost every hand pointing in one direction, there is one pointing in the opposite direction to cancel its vote or contribution to the sum. Only for paths close to Hero’s path of least action, is there a lack of cancellations, and so for paths closest to Hero’s path, the quantum amplitude of the sum is well pronounced and therefore also it magnitude and probability per standard quantum mechanical rules. In case you have not leaped to it, here is how this relates to the non-existence of photons, or more precisely, light rays. If there is no preferred ray path in the first place that picks out the least action, if each and every path is equally relevant and necessary for the sums to do their cancellations and leave behind a trace of the least path, if all these imaginary paths are necessary, then in fact, there is no real path. This message brought to you by Not-a-Neutrino.

     

    Mathematically, its one of those calculus things in which a first order deviation from the classical least-action path produces at most a second order variation in the position of the hands for a neighboring path’s quantum amplitude. When you can derive the wisdom of god from so little, that kind of sweeps away god himself.