Another way to look at this involves the Lorentz transform. When applied to a photon moving in the positive x direction at c we note that lengths along x are contracted to zero relative to a rest frame observer.

Volume is a product of x, y and z lengths. In the case of an x-moving photon, there is no length in x. Consequently the volume product vanishes.

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:Another way to look at this involves the Lorentz transform. When applied to a photon moving in the positive x direction at c we note that lengths along x are contracted to zero relative to a rest frame observer.

Volume is a product of x, y and z lengths. In the case of an x-moving photon, there is no length in x. Consequently the volume product vanishes.

Well, you could argue that, way, but it could cause confusion, as there is no specific volume associated with a photon in the first place.

From the 1st post:

... I suppose in this sense, photons could lack volume, but does that mean they lack dimensions? It doesn't appear this could be the case if photons have wavelengths.

The Lorentz transform shows how photons "lack" the forward, x dimension. This could only cause confusion in an idiot's brain.

What insult, DavidMcC? I've read elsewhere that you display the characteristics of some kind of persecution complex but this is the first time I can recall I've seen it displayed openly. The algebra of the Lorentz transform is mid-school simple - if an object travels at c relative to "me" then I observe it displays no thickness along the axis of travel.

Sendraks wrote:I believe David is referring to this as the insult.

newolder wrote:This could only cause confusion in an idiot's brain.

I can only assume that David has chosen to consider this an insult because he's self declaring as having been confused.

I see. Now that I have introduced the terms "simple" and "thickness" into the topic, any reaction thereto could also be interesting.

Jesus.

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:What insult, DavidMcC? I've read elsewhere that you display the characteristics of some kind of persecution complex but this is the first time I can recall I've seen it displayed openly.

That's your interpretation. You have to bear in mind your own issues. I suspect that, for years, you have been waiting for a chance to hit back after I exposed your FTL travel nonsense as just that.

I'd ask for clarification but this^ is not on topic.

The algebra of the Lorentz transform is mid-school simple - if an object travels at c relative to "me" then I observe it displays no thickness along the axis of travel.

Of course it is, but that was not the issue. It is just playing with words to talk of the size of a photon in any case, as I have already pointed out. Interpretting the size of a photon in terms of its wavelength is dubious, to say the least. Better to say that photons only have the size that their associated EM field has (which can fill the entire universe, or not, depending on whether the light-source is inside a box).

Who interpreted the size of a photon in terms of its wavelength? In the standard model of particle physics, electromagnetism is modelled by a group of ideas known collectively as U(1). The 1 refers to 1 complex dimension.

A packet of massless e-m radiation energy moving at c relative to "me" displays 0 thickness along its axis of travel (Lorentz). Vibrations of the e-m radiation in and around the other two orthogonal axes relate to the amplitude, wavelength and polarisation state of the energy (Maxwell). Volume is length x breadth x height and hence, an object with 0 length has 0 volume (Euclid). Does the mathematics behind these words answer the OP's question?

laklak wrote:Tired of limp, flyaway light? Try new Elvive Photon Volumizer Seurm!

Have you been at that bottle of sea rum again.