< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The things that happened before the appearance of God in the universe

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 06:03
 
EN - 23 December 2018 04:10 AM
MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning. But they don’t really exist independent of time. In fact, photons most certainly exist in our temporal universe. They are observable and detectable. They have a well defined speed. We know that a photon emitted by the Sun takes just over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. So it necessarily travels in time to get here. Also, photons have no mass. So I’m not sure it’s even accurate to categorize them as a “thing”. Anyway, the believers here aren’t thinking of photons when they talk about something existing outside of time and space that created the universe. They’re thinking of a God being. So they have the burden of showing how this God being is real and can exist independent of space and time.

Eternal means “lasting forever”. Which entails time.

Ron

1. Believers here have no burden unless they try to convince someone else of their faith.

To the extent that they are making a claim (e.g. that something can exist outside of time and space), then honest discourse dictates that they back up the claim with evidence when challenged. Otherwise, you are giving a free pass to any assertion that is not made in an attempt to “convince someone of their faith”. Would you be so charitable to someone who claimed that The One Eyed Spaghetti Monster created the universe?     

2. You’ve quoted one definition of eternal, but another is simply “timeless.”

OK. So now we know the word is ambiguous. Which means it’s not very useful.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 08:27
 
MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning.

No, you don’t get it.  You’re alluding to a common misconception.  “In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time.”  Photons “experience” neither time nor distance.

“From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.”

“The closer you get to light speed, the less time you experience and the shorter a distance you experience. You may recall that these numbers begin to approach zero. According to relativity, mass can never move through the Universe at light speed. Mass will increase to infinity, and the amount of energy required to move it any faster will also be infinite. But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.”

Your knowledge in physics is lacking.  Photons are indeed “a thing”.  Surely you’ve heard of the electromagnetic spectrum?  That last X-ray you had at the dentist’s office?  Photons.  We experience photons in our temporal plane, but photons experience zero distance and zero time; they don’t have our constraints.

Nothing proves the existence of god, but photons illustrate that there are physical entities that can exist independent of time.

Eternal means “lasting forever”. Which entails time.

Eternal, adjective, without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal).”

Temporal, adjective, of or relating to time.”

Eternal does not entail time; by definition, it opposes time.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 08:34
 
MrRon - 22 December 2018 04:28 PM

Personally, I would change my mind if I was shown to be wrong about something.

You’re most definitely wrong about photons.  Changed your mind yet?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3292
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 08:59
 

Maybe that’s why Jesus isn’t back yet.  He lost track of time.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 09:29
 
LadyJane - 23 December 2018 08:59 AM

Maybe that’s why Jesus isn’t back yet.  He lost track of time.

His dad made the appointment, but wouldn’t tell him the day or hour.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 10:00
 
bbearren - 23 December 2018 08:27 AM
MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning.

No, you don’t get it.  You’re alluding to a common misconception.  “In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time.”  Photons “experience” neither time nor distance.

“From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.”

“The closer you get to light speed, the less time you experience and the shorter a distance you experience. You may recall that these numbers begin to approach zero. According to relativity, mass can never move through the Universe at light speed. Mass will increase to infinity, and the amount of energy required to move it any faster will also be infinite. But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.”

Your knowledge in physics is lacking.  Photons are indeed “a thing”.  Surely you’ve heard of the electromagnetic spectrum?  That last X-ray you had at the dentist’s office?  Photons.  We experience photons in our temporal plane, but photons experience zero distance and zero time; they don’t have our constraints.

Nothing proves the existence of god, but photons illustrate that there are physical entities that can exist independent of time.

Eternal means “lasting forever”. Which entails time.

Eternal, adjective, without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal).”

Temporal, adjective, of or relating to time.”

Eternal does not entail time; by definition, it opposes time.

BB,

Maybe you missed where I said “if one could actually be a photon”. Which is the same as “from the perspective of a photon”. So I don’t disagree that photons themselves experience neither time nor distance. But we observe, detect, and measure them in time and space. I don’t regard something that manifests in and can be observed, detected, and measured in time and space as being “independent” of time and space.

The “lasting forever” part is the give away. If time is not a component of “lasting forever”, then the phrase has no meaning.

Ron  

PS - You seem to be trying really hard for the guy who is famous for saying more or less that you don’t care what others think and that you’re not here to convince anybody of anything.

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 10:01
 
bbearren - 23 December 2018 08:34 AM
MrRon - 22 December 2018 04:28 PM

Personally, I would change my mind if I was shown to be wrong about something.

You’re most definitely wrong about photons.  Changed your mind yet?

Nothing I said about photons is inaccurate.

Still trying to change minds?

Ron

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 December 2018 10:10
 
GAD - 22 December 2018 12:33 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 December 2018 12:24 PM

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

Your 1st and 3rd points disqualify you as a completely ignorant common variety theist nut.

Disqualify from what?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 10:28
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 December 2018 10:10 AM
GAD - 22 December 2018 12:33 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 December 2018 12:24 PM

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

Your 1st and 3rd points disqualify you as a completely ignorant common variety theist nut.

Disqualify from what?

Pretty much any discussion of reason or science as your arguments are based on ignorance, myth, magic and superstition. 

 

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 December 2018 10:37
 
MrRon - 22 December 2018 04:28 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 December 2018 12:24 PM
MrRon - 21 December 2018 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 21 December 2018 08:03 AM

Theoretical physics doesn’t explain everything, though.  Theoretical physics seeks to predict and explain phenomena.  It’s not always right either.

Physics may not explain everything, but theology explains nothing. It just makes assertions. At least scientific pronouncements can be double-checked, verified, and revised if necessary. Theology offers none of that.

How could something possibly come from nothing, and how could someone explain something coming from nothing?  Isn’t science the study of what is?  If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.

Not knowing how something can come from nothing does not justify asserting a God.

Scientists aren’t claiming that “they know the Universe came from nothing.” The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity, which rapidly inflates. Beyond that, nobody knows. Although as I stated before, virtual particles do offer a precedence for something coming from nothing.

The main compelling reason for believing the Bible:

1.  The canon of Scripture is composed of 66 different books and letters which were written by 40 different authors over a long period of time.

2.  The time period that the books were written over makes it impossible that the different authors personally knew each other.

3.  Many of the books of the Old Testament prophesy about events that took place in the new Testament, which, apart from God’s involvement, is an impossibility.

The number of books or authors or the time span is irrelevant to the truth of the claims. And no, there has not been any fulfilled “prophesy” in the Bible. At least not anything other than the self-fulfilling kind. But even if there was, it still wouldn’t justify asserting a God. And besides, I’m sure believers of other religions can make similar claims about the validity of their holy books.

To your question on conflicts within the Bible:

This is my personal experience, so it may not be what your asking for.  I have only heard folks who disagree with the Bible point out sections that may appear to conflict because they are taken out of context.  Each section of the Bible has a specific setting and context.

Why should I value your personal experience any more than the personal experience of someone else with a different religion and a different God?

Again, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors, would it change your mind?

Ron

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

Oh, I’m sure there’s some “historical” accuracy to the Bible. Certainly some places and peoples and things that it mentions existed. I’m sure proponents of the Quran and the Hindu Vedas and The Book of Mormon also claim historical accuracy for their books. And those can also be found online quite easily. But I’m willing to bet you don’t put much stock in the claims of those other holy books, do you?

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

Like I said, beyond the singularity nobody knows what it was like. And not knowing doesn’t justify asserting a God, which is what you are doing. In the case of virtual particles, the particles emerge from nothing. So they are only “something” AFTER they emerged from the empty vacuum of space.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

Again, self-fulfilling/vaguely-fulfilled prophecies don’t count. And what about the UN-fulfilled prophecies that should have been fulfilled? Besides, as I said before, even if we grant the prophecies, how does that prove a God being? 

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

It seems you are basing your beliefs on a particular holy book. Therefore, a logical starting point would be… If it can be shown that your book contains contradictions and/or errors, would that change your mind?

Personally, I would change my mind if I was shown to be wrong about something.

Ron

The historical accuracy of Biblical prophesy is relevant.  How could it be ignored?

There is a difference between claiming historical accuracy and being historically accurate.

I am not understanding your argument against my original point.  I am simply saying that it doesn’t make sense by any standard to say that it’s possible for something to come from nothing.  A photon, “virtual particle,” singularity, ect., are all things.  They cannot be nothing.  It doesn’t make sense to say that virtual particles created something, but they themselves didn’t exist.  Saying a photon is nothing because it has no mass is nonsensical.  A photon patently is something.

My original point is this:  If someone can believe that something always existed, why is it hard to believe that God always existed?

What self-fulfilling/vaguely-fulfilled prophecies are you talking about?  What prophecies in the Bible that should have been fulfilled haven’t been fulfilled?

How does prophesy being fulfilled prove God’s existence?  The proof is in the pudding.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 11:23
 
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:01 AM

Nothing I said about photons is inaccurate.

MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning.

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position. Rather than an invariant time interval between two events, there is an invariant spacetime interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.”

But they don’t really exist independent of time. In fact, photons most certainly exist in our temporal universe.

“In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling.  But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all.  So how can light get from one place to another?  The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.

Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going.  Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

They are observable and detectable.

The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum.

Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The photon’s wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon – they cannot be described by any mechanical model; a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.

They have a well defined speed.

Actually, The Speed of Light Is NOT About Light; it’s the speed of causality.

We know that a photon emitted by the Sun takes just over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. So it necessarily travels in time to get here.

A photon emitted from the surface of the sun has been generated at the core of the sun.  How long does it take light to get out from the inside of the Sun?  “These estimates show that the emission of light at the surface can lag the production of light at the core by up to 1 million years.”  And still, the photon “experiences” neither time nor distance.  It is emitted and impacts your retina simultaneously; no distance traveled, no time elapsed.

Also, photons have no mass. So I’m not sure it’s even accurate to categorize them as a “thing”.

I can certainly agree that you are not sure about photons.  That’s my point.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 11:28
 
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:00 AM

You seem to be trying really hard for the guy who is famous for saying more or less that you don’t care what others think and that you’re not here to convince anybody of anything.

I’m quoting stuff about physics.  I didn’t make up any of it, I’m just pointing out where your understanding of it is lacking.  Take it or leave it, it’s not about me, after all.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 17:32
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 December 2018 10:37 AM

The historical accuracy of Biblical prophesy is relevant.  How could it be ignored?

So do you put any stock in the prophecies of other holy books?

There is a difference between claiming historical accuracy and being historically accurate.

I am not understanding your argument against my original point.  I am simply saying that it doesn’t make sense by any standard to say that it’s possible for something to come from nothing.  A photon, “virtual particle,” singularity, ect., are all things.  They cannot be nothing.  It doesn’t make sense to say that virtual particles created something, but they themselves didn’t exist.  Saying a photon is nothing because it has no mass is nonsensical.  A photon patently is something.

Nobody is saying that “virtual particles created something.“ The virtual particles don’t exist at first, but then they appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space. Now I agree that that doesn’t seem to make much sense, but it is what is observed on quantum scales:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

I never said a photon was nothing because it has no mass.

My original point is this:  If someone can believe that something always existed, why is it hard to believe that God always existed?

What do you mean by “God”?

What self-fulfilling/vaguely-fulfilled prophecies are you talking about?

Any and all so-called “prophecies” in the Bible.

What prophecies in the Bible that should have been fulfilled haven’t been fulfilled?

For one:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

How does prophesy being fulfilled prove God’s existence?  The proof is in the pudding.

What is the very BEST fulfilled prophecy that proves God’s existence?

And, if it can be shown that your book contains contradictions and/or errors, would that change your mind?

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 17:43
 
bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:23 AM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:01 AM

Nothing I said about photons is inaccurate.

MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning.

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position. Rather than an invariant time interval between two events, there is an invariant spacetime interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.”

“A time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position” is still… time! Moreover, describing the malleability of time does not render it outside of or independent of anything. It’s simply the way our universe works. Nothing new or noteworthy in your analysis.

But they don’t really exist independent of time. In fact, photons most certainly exist in our temporal universe.

“In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling.  But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all.  So how can light get from one place to another?  The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.

Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going.  Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

Redundant. I’ve already noted the meaningless of time “from the perspective of the photon.”

They are observable and detectable.

The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). The photon has zero rest mass and always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum.

Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position or momentum, though not both at the same time as per the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The photon’s wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon – they cannot be described by any mechanical model; a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.

One of the cornerstones of quantum theory is the principle that you cannot measure any property of an object without affecting the object itself. Indeed, detecting the very existence of a photon until now has usually meant destroying it. Physicists, however, have now devised a way to detect single photons of visible light without bringing about their demise. Others had done the same with microwave photons, but this is the first time that it has been done in the part of the spectrum that could matter for a future ‘quantum Internet’.
The conventional way to detect a single particle of light is to catch it with a sensor, absorbing its energy but destroying the particle in the process.
In recent years, physicists have developed methods to extract part of the information from a particle’s quantum state — for example showing that it is more likely to be in one place than in another — in a set of methods known as weak measurement. But in doing so, they reduce the amount of information carried by the quantum state itself.
The new technique instead definitively detects whether the photon is there at all, while potentially leaving further quantum information intact, says Stephan Ritter, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, and a co-author of the study. The researchers observe a trace of the photon — the ‘envelope’ containing the information — and pass it on without reading what is inside, he explains.

https://www.nature.com/news/photons-detected-without-being-destroyed-1.14179

They have a well defined speed.

Actually, The Speed of Light Is NOT About Light; it’s the speed of causality.

Are you equating photons with causality?

We know that a photon emitted by the Sun takes just over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. So it necessarily travels in time to get here.

A photon emitted from the surface of the sun has been generated at the core of the sun.  How long does it take light to get out from the inside of the Sun?  “These estimates show that the emission of light at the surface can lag the production of light at the core by up to 1 million years.”  And still, the photon “experiences” neither time nor distance.  It is emitted and impacts your retina simultaneously; no distance traveled, no time elapsed.

Now you’re just being silly if you think the photon doesn’t have to travel any distance to reach us from the Sun. It has to travel 93 million miles through space and time to get here (again, I’ve already noted that if you ARE the photon then the situation is quite different). But to imply that it objectively travels no distance and arrives here simultaneously with its emission from the Sun is just wrong. 

Also, photons have no mass. So I’m not sure it’s even accurate to categorize them as a “thing”.

I can certainly agree that you are not sure about photons.  That’s my point.

I’m pretty sure about the photons. But whether to include them in the same category as every other (mass-containing) object in the universe is another matter. They certainly do have properties unlike anything else though.

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
23 December 2018 17:44
 
bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:28 AM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:00 AM

You seem to be trying really hard for the guy who is famous for saying more or less that you don’t care what others think and that you’re not here to convince anybody of anything.

I’m quoting stuff about physics.  I didn’t make up any of it, I’m just pointing out where your understanding of it is lacking.  Take it or leave it, it’s not about me, after all.

And I’m trying to point out why your assessment of my understanding is inaccurate. But go on. I’m sure you’ll continue in your efforts to be recognized as having an opinion worth addressing.

Ron

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›