Star Trek

Counter-matter engines doesn't sound quite so good!  Here's some more questions please.

What is a photon?

How long is a photon?

Are all photons the same length?

Look forward to some Spockism answers!  Cheers!

These are good questions  - but difficult to answer.

Are photons energy wave-fronts, wave-particles or something else?
How canred-shift and blue-shift be explained for these scenarios?

Will get back to you with some Spockisms.

Mr Spock, is light formed by waves or particles?

Captain, in the photoelectric effect, light hitting a metal sheet causes electrons to be ejected from the surface.  Below the required energy level, the light will not free the electrons, no matter how bright the light source. 

If the light beam was formed of waves, then multiple low-energy waves should release an electron just as a single higher-energy wave does.

Hence light cannot be waves, it must be made up of particles.

Captain, the explanation of the Photoelectric Effect, above, is the consensus view among Earth scientists.

However, if we were to follow Vulcan logic, then we would consider light to be energy oscillations or waves that spread out from an energy source, and which change the Potential Energy of the surrounding Space.

These Potential Energy waves will continue through Space forever until they transfer their energy to something in their path - usually atoms or molecules - that can vibrate at the same frequency as the energy wave.

For instance, low-frequency microwaves will transfer energy to the molecules in your pizza and heat it up; infra-red frequencies will warm the cells of the human skin; higher-frequency ultra-violet waves will trigger tanning and sunburn; very high-frequency X-rays will pass through skin but not bone and will destroy human cells.

So, to Vulcan scientists, the Photoelectric Effect is just that the electrons need to vibrate at a high enough frequency to have the required energy to escape from their orbital position in the atom - the excitation threshold. Slower, lower-frequency energy waves just won't shake the electrons loose, no matter how large the amplitude (intensity) of the vibration.

A Potential Energy wave in 2-dimensions:

A Potential Energy wave in 3-dimensions:

Thank you Mr Spock.  The Vulcan analysis is quite fascinating!

Yes, very interesting Mr Spock.

You say that these Potential Energy waves continue through Space forever, until they're absorbed by something. But don't they get weaker with distance?

You are quite correct, Ensign.

The Potential Energy wave-front spreads out spherically from its source, so the intensity of the wave-front reduces with the square of the distance (the inverse square rule).

Captain: We have received some further information from the Vulcan Science Academy:

We can see the same inverse-square law in operation when we pump energy into a system, such as a radio transmitter. A modulated Radio Frequency potential applied to the antenna causes the free particles in the antenna (electrons) to move in sympathy. This, in turn, causes fluctuations in the Potential Energy of the surrounding space. The Potential Energy wave-front radiates out spherically, its intensity reducing with distance by the inverse-square law.

Electrons in a distant receiving antenna absorb energy from the Potential Energy wave-front, and move in sympathy with the original Radio Frequency waveform. This can be detected and amplified by the receiving equipment.

LL&P.

Well thank you Mr Spock and the Vulcan Science Academy for explaining the fundamentals of the universe!!!!

Just love it.

You mentioned something about red-shift earlier.

Is there a Vulcan explanation of Red-shift?

Hey, can someone answer me how can noting be faster than light moving forward is light particals within light are moving in a wave and that wave moving forward at the speed of light and therefore the paritcals are moving faster than that? There whole einsteinian theory destroyed so cannot base anything else upon it; so now you know 200 years they be laughing at u saying "That one of those times they jsut put theory upon theory upon theroy for generations, and 4get that in astronomy every few years minds just as good or better proven wrong in theory by the truth of what in sky, but when no have tech to disprove just put theory upon theory upon theory, and if any 1 wrong than all wrong after, and if each theory based upon 5 other theories that new at time and each of them 10th generation that mean total 11th generation so 5 to 11th power of theories, and if on average take 2-3 years for thoeries be disproved and new therories based upon new evidence also loos validity after 5 years of speculation from that original new evidence, that suggest less than 50% chance of any one of those original 48,828,125 theories correct, but even at 90% chance each of them being right, that give about 10 to the -2234375 power chance of being right or if each 99% chance of being right that give about 10 to -213150 chance of bieng right today, and even if 99.99% chance of being right that give 2.0674693809501782438634870230301e-2121 chance of being right.

And to have a 51% chancce of being right, the chance of each of the base theories being right would have to be: 99.999998620990364424146021059995% which to put into persepctive, if a person lived for 27,397 years and spent every day but one sleeping in the same bed (and yes was born an adult), the chance of his being correct that the next day he would wake up in that bed, based upon the % of night of having slept in that bed, be less likely than that above %, so I no think the human mind may place that % chance in head, I think the most sure a human can be of any fact is far less likely than above; and yet we no say scientific theory is absolute fact, as much as anything we can everr know, we say is theory.

You are right.

Earth scientists have based each new theory on the top of an old theory, but the original theories don't make sense when you look at modern experiments and observations.

They can't explain what "matter" is or what "charge" is or what "gravity" is.

So they make up more complex theories to explain what they see - and end up inventing dark matter and dark energy etc etc.

They spend billions on the Large Hadron Collider and Space probes which makes things more complicated - you wonder if it's just to create more jobs for the scientists!

If Bohr and Einstein were alive today, bet they would say "hold on - we're going in the wrong direction, some of our basic theory must be wrong."

We need some new, simpletheories to explain the basics - something like this "ED is Constant" story.

BTW - your mathematics is impressive!

alfamav  thanks and thanks 

Totally agree there seems to be a lot wrong with the commonly accepted theories.

"Science Fiction offers explanations for things we don't yet understand."

That's why I read these boards and try to follow the different suggestions and ideas.

Keep it coming Mr Spock, Vulcan Science Academy and Brianstorm999.