sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 30, 6:22 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> "Randy Poe" wrote in message
>
> news:25090b0a-adbc-45fa-9ce2-3294fddc292d@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> | On Mar 30, 2:21 pm, Ralph Hertle wrote:
> | > You can't prove that the photon is not a discrete existent and that the
> | > appropriate experiments are not possible.
> | >
> | > What facts exist that indicate that the photon actually exists?
> |
> | Thousands of experiments. Off the top of my head:
> |
> | Direct evidence:
> |
> | Single-photon diffraction experiments, single-photon *anything*
> | experiments.
> |
> | Indirect evidence: blackbody radiation and the photoelectric
> | effect, which are inconsistent with un-quantized light. Why
> | is there a minimum frequency for the photoelectric electrons
> | to be emitted?
> |
> |
> | >
> | > The photon science should start from the basic facts.
> |
> | Single photons are routinely detected in experiments all
> | the time.
>
> Which is why their speed is directly proportional to wavelength -

Counter to experimental observation.

> red and blue shift is routinely observed and Einstein's
> crackpottery is not routinely observed or ever observed.

On the contrary, the record of experimental confirmation is
a century old now, and growing.

On the other hand, there is no experimental confirmation
of the effect you claim, dispersion of light in vacuum. And
where there is dispersion (in air for instance), it certainly isn't
as strong as "speed is directly proportional to wavelength". That
would
mean that 650 nm red light travels 50% faster than 433 nm
blue light. It would mean the sun should be a rainbow-colored
smear in the sky, with the blue sun image being several
minutes behind the red sun image. And it would mean 100 MHz
radio waves, with a wavelength of 3 m, should travel 4.6 million
times faster than red light. Why, we ought to be able to get
radio signals from Mars in about 40-50 microseconds instead
of the several minutes those silly NASA people have been
waiting.

- Randy