|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nick
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 795
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:19 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Porat, they say photon is the force carrier of elctromagnetism.
That means it explains magnetism; which can be attractive
or repulsive right?
That should do it.
Another one kicked in the head... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:39 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hi cook
it does not matter what they say
and certainly waht you say!
it matters what they prove!!
and a distubed imbecil like you didnt even understood that they
didnt prove nothing they are just mumbling
some of them the more honsest ones (not like you0
admit that there is a hole in the theory.
so just piss off and if you cant contribute anything of substance
just go to your pub and have a good time there with your right gangster
friends
not here.
have a good time
Y.Porat
----------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:53 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
|
I'll leave you to the drinking!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:04 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
pleaee bypass the gangster Varney
Y.Porat
--------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:42 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1119159810.737473.164010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
you are looking at the physical concept here
thats very nice
yet why di dyou have to wait so long for me to drive you look for it??
because it is confuscation
I suggest you don't know what photons are.
|
do you know aht thety are??!!
it is not a mathematical artifact
is is a physical creation!!
I told you what they are, but
you told me ??
who are you to tell me ?? you are parroting
you dont use your thinking
because ahd you started using your own thinking
you would understand that you are talking nonsense physics !!
see later.
| Quote: | you didn't believe me. I think now it's time for you to do the same thing
I did-- buy some books, read them, learn the theory. Then you won't have
to ask on Usenet and tell people they're wrong when they try to answer.
----------- |
i have a clue that i was studying about photons may be before you were
born...
no need for more parroting old books
we need some new nooks !! got it?
see later.
----
| Quote: |
so i expect from you to be honest and to admit that
there is no experiemntal evidence to prove
that
photons are 'the field makers'
nor experimental prove that photons are attraction force agents!!
Why should they not cause attraction? Is it sensible that photons could
cause repulsion?
----------- |
and you what to tteach me physics logic ??
a photon tha thas momentum right??
waht is momentum? it is a vector with a direction
so if it hits a body particle
waht will be th edirection of that force of hitting
will it be to reject the body or to move it
closer inopposite to the direction of photon movement!!
now even if you would say that its momentum includes
say a rotational momentum (that has not been verified yet)
so waht will be the result of such collision??
will it be in opposite direction of the photons movement??
that was 1
2
why should the photons that are radiated from aprticle A
hit the target that is called particle B ??
why should it not be radiated in all directions around A??
3 what happense to all those photons that are radiated
and not hitting any target??
why dont we see them
why are they not being dpleated and lost in the endless unives??
4
how is it that all those radiated photons keep srounding
the chrged particles while we know that photons
are moving liks hell in strigh tlines??
you could say:
the electric field is keeping them from running out but ....
you forgot that just now you claimed that
'it is the photons' that make the electric field !!
so ...
'the photons that make the electric field and move in stright lines
are controlling themselves to ....... move in a concised volume??
dont you see the clumsy stupidity of it ???
and you know where from that stupidity comes??
yoy whant beleive it :
i suspect toat nmo one even though about it responsibly??
people just took it carelesly fo rgranted without
giving it even a second seroius thought!!
and you would ask
how is it that only crackpot Porat though about it ??
it is because that crackpot got to revolutionary findings
not even dealing with photons- dealing with completely
independant issues of physics
and go tto some concusions
so indirectly while i trnsfeered those conclusions
to the attraction force issue
by new findings got the answer for the attraction force as well
and it was very different from the nonsense paradigma.
byw i saw just today a thread of an electric Engineer
that confirm my assertions from electric engineering aspects
so i got an unexoected aditional verification
to my claimes.comeletlly new and independant of my claimes!!
ie cross verification.
ps Hansen though all our differences i appreciate
your curiousity and thank you for your remarks.
---
----------
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
In article <1119159810.737473.164010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
| Quote: | you are looking at the physical concept here
thats very nice
yet why di dyou have to wait so long for me to drive you look for it??
now the fact is you did nothing in finding the *physical concept*
actually you did very well with obfuscating the threads issue!!!
your answer tells us nothing to prove that electrric fields
are done (listen carefully) *by photons*
so your anser was worse than not answering anything
because it is confuscation
|
I suggest you don't know what photons are. I told you what they are, but
you didn't believe me. I think now it's time for you to do the same thing
I did-- buy some books, read them, learn the theory. Then you won't have
to ask on Usenet and tell people they're wrong when they try to answer.
| Quote: |
so i expect from you to be honest and to admit that
there is no experiemntal evidence to prove
that
photons are 'the field makers'
nor experimental prove that photons are attraction force agents!!
|
Why should they not cause attraction? Is it sensible that photons could
cause repulsion?
| Quote: |
all the best
Y.Porat
ps i suggest again that you will avoid those rude quotes as the
Aristophanes one
because what *you* did untill now - was farting
you are not dealing with idiots that will buy your smatguyness.
|
Don't take it personally, they're randomly selected.
--
"Outside the camp you shall have a place set aside to be used as a
latrine. You shall keep a trowel in your equipment and with it, when you
go outside to ease nature, you shall first dig a hole and afterward cover
up your excrement." -- Deuteronomy 23:13-14 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
In article <1119188548.418495.179170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
| Quote: |
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1119159810.737473.164010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
you are looking at the physical concept here
thats very nice
yet why di dyou have to wait so long for me to drive you look for it??
because it is confuscation
I suggest you don't know what photons are.
do you know aht thety are??!!
it is not a mathematical artifact
is is a physical creation!!
I told you what they are, but
you told me ??
who are you to tell me ?? you are parroting
you dont use your thinking
because ahd you started using your own thinking
you would understand that you are talking nonsense physics !!
see later.
|
You think I'm parroting? Do you think I'm touting a party line? Have you
seen my description of photons in any of the books you've read? Have you
seen my description of photons repeated again and again by other
participants of this newsgroup? "Parotting" has lost all meaning on this
newsgroup! It's nothing more than an insulting way of saying "I have no
idea what you're saying, but I'm sure I disagree with it."
| Quote: |
you didn't believe me. I think now it's time for you to do the same thing
I did-- buy some books, read them, learn the theory. Then you won't have
to ask on Usenet and tell people they're wrong when they try to answer.
-----------
i have a clue that i was studying about photons may be before you were
born...
no need for more parroting old books
we need some new nooks !! got it?
see later.
----
so i expect from you to be honest and to admit that
there is no experiemntal evidence to prove
that
photons are 'the field makers'
nor experimental prove that photons are attraction force agents!!
Why should they not cause attraction? Is it sensible that photons could
cause repulsion?
-----------
and you what to tteach me physics logic ??
a photon tha thas momentum right??
waht is momentum? it is a vector with a direction
so if it hits a body particle
waht will be th edirection of that force of hitting
will it be to reject the body or to move it
closer inopposite to the direction of photon movement!!
now even if you would say that its momentum includes
say a rotational momentum (that has not been verified yet)
so waht will be the result of such collision??
will it be in opposite direction of the photons movement??
|
That's what I thought. You said you don't think of photons as little
billiard balls that knock into electrons. But here you've just given a
little billiard ball model of the photon. You think of the attractive
force as a photon going from left to right, hitting an electron, and
making the electron go left, which it obvously can't do because the photon
was going to the right. A billiard ball going to the right doesn't strike
a second ball and make it go left.
That's not what a photon is. That's what a million science fans think a
photon is. Even in my classes on quantum field theory, that's the picture
the students got of photons. In one session a fellow student, like you,
asked how photon exchange can cause an attractive force. The professor
said something about uncertainty in where the photon is created. The
student said "Oh, that makes sense. Wait, no it doesn't!" He was right,
it didn't make sense.
Let me try to illustrate photons with a simple thought experiment-- a
charged particle in a plane wave radiation field. The radiation has a
single wavelength, lambda, and a form like
E(x,t) = E0 cos(2*pi*x/lambda - wt)
with w, the angular frequency w=f*2*pi, and related to wavelength by
lambda=c/f. Say the wavelength is 100 nm.
Consider the electron as a classical particle and the field a quantized
field (the opposite of the semiclassical approach of undergrad quantum
mechanics with a quantized particle and classical field). Watch it for a
short time. What will happen to it in that time interval?
One thing that might happen is nothing at all, which would be completely
uninteresting except that "nothing" is not an option in classical
mechanics.
Or the particle could gain momentum. How much momentum? You know
DeBroglie's relation, p=h/lambda. So the field could transfer a momentum
p = (6.626e-34 J-s) / (100 nm) = 6.626e-27 kg-m/s
Not 5e-27 kg-m/s, not 8e-27 kg-m/s, because those numbers are not
consistent with DeBroglie's relation. The wavelength is 100 nm, so the
momentum transferred is 6.626e-27 kg-m/s. And the same momentum and an
energy E=pc is removed from the field to satisfy conservation laws. "A
photon has been exchanged."
If you're wondering why you don't see a little billiard ball knocking into
the electron in that description, it's because it isn't there. The
electron receives a sudden and finite kick, it is AS IF a particle knocked
into it. The picture of a particle hitting the electron is a metaphor for
the interaction. But fundamentally it is a field that obeys DeBroglie's
relation. "Photon" is just a word that labels that type of interaction
with the field.
The electron might get a second momentum kick, and a third, etc. That's
complicated a bit by the Doppler shifting of the field relative to a
moving electron, and the kicks being in different directions. But it's
essentially the same physics.
Going back to your question,
"What is the experimental prove (repeat) *experimental prove*
- (as commonly is concidered to be experimental prove)--
that the photon is an attraction force producer?"
The proof is that attractive forces exist. The attraction is not CAUSED
by photons, it is CALLED photons. "A photon has been exchanged" when
momentum is transfered from the field to the particle, and F=dp/dt.
Zigoteau's suggestion that you pick up bits of paper with a charged comb
was not so facetious after all.
| Quote: |
that was 1
2
why should the photons that are radiated from aprticle A
hit the target that is called particle B ??
why should it not be radiated in all directions around A??
|
These other questions are predicated on the billiard ball model of the
photon. And they're very reasonable questions from a viewpoint that seems
to be the inevitable result of the sorts of literature that tends to be
written about the subject. To answer, I say heed Wald's advice that
quantum field theory is a theory of fields. There is a particle
interpretation, but particles don't have to be invoked.
| Quote: | you could say:
the electric field is keeping them from running out but ....
you forgot that just now you claimed that
'it is the photons' that make the electric field !!
so ...
'the photons that make the electric field and move in stright lines
are controlling themselves to ....... move in a concised volume??
dont you see the clumsy stupidity of it ???
and you know where from that stupidity comes??
yoy whant beleive it :
|
Yes, I see the clumsy stupidity of it. The descriptions of virtual
particles filling the layman's literature are horrible and misleading, and
even in most textbooks it's not a lot better. (Greiner's and Wald's books
are noteworthy exceptions. I didn't just pull this stuff out of my ass.)
The clumsy stupidity of it has bothered me for a long time, I've worked
hard to try to come to grips with it. The clumsy stupidity doesn't come
from the theory, it comes from interpretations of the theory. I can't
say I've mastered the subject, and I can't say my own explanation is not
clumsy and stupid. But as clumsy and stupid as my explanation might be,
it's better than what you'll find in most books, even if it is harder to
explain and harder to understand. Photons do what the field does because
when the field does something we call it a photon. It's as simple as
that, short of understanding the quantum theory of fields.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1119188548.418495.179170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
because it is confuscation
I suggest you don't know what photons are.
do you know aht thety are??!!
it is not a mathematical artifact
is is a physical creation!!
you would understand that you are talking nonsense physics !!
see later.
you didn't believe me. I think now it's time for you to do the same thing
I did-- buy some books, read them, learn the theory. Then you won't have
to ask on Usenet and tell people they're wrong when they try to answer.
-----------
i have a clue that i was studying about photons may be before you were
born...
no need for more parroting old books
we need some new nooks !! got it?
see later.
----
so i expect from you to be honest and to admit that
there is no experiemntal evidence to prove
that
photons are 'the field makers'
nor experimental prove that photons are attraction force agents!!
Why should they not cause attraction? Is it sensible that photons could
cause repulsion?
-----------
and you what to tteach me physics logic ??
a photon tha thas momentum right??
waht is momentum? it is a vector with a direction
so if it hits a body particle
waht will be th edirection of that force of hitting
will it be to reject the body or to move it
closer inopposite to the direction of photon movement!!
now even if you would say that its momentum includes
say a rotational momentum (that has not been verified yet)
so waht will be the result of such collision??
will it be in opposite direction of the photons movement??
That's what I thought. You said you don't think of photons as little
billiard balls that knock into electrons. But here you've just given a
little billiard ball model of the photon. You think of the attractive
force as a photon going from left to right, hitting an electron, and
making the electron go left, which it obvously can't do because the photon
was going to the right. A billiard ball going to the right doesn't strike
a second ball and make it go left.
That's not what a photon is. That's what a million science fans think a
photon is. Even in my classes on quantum field theory, that's the picture
the students got of photons. In one session a fellow student, like you,
asked how photon exchange can cause an attractive force. The professor
said something about uncertainty in where the photon is created. The
student said "Oh, that makes sense. Wait, no it doesn't!" He was right,
it didn't make sense.
Let me try to illustrate photons with a simple thought experiment-- a
charged particle in a plane wave radiation field. The radiation has a
single wavelength, lambda, and a form like
|
---------------
hansen
first let me thank you for your detailed naswer
(you start to think and not to parrot and that is a good move)
yet
just above is the 'banana' that you started to slipp on.... (:-)
the moment you intruduce into the discussion the term FIELD
thats the moment in which you start to slipp!!
we are not talking about a field we are talking about the photon
once you say a 'filed' and unintentionally *asume* that that field is
done by a photon thtas where you missed the trarget!!
that is the sort of 'X=X' prove......
i will let you know what is my secret revolusionary understanding and
suggestion about
what any field must have in its basic.
anyway it cannot be a photon
as you later youself started to get it folowing my
next 'difficult questions ' that no one before took care to ask.
(amazingly unexplained why???....ie why not asked before !! )
---------------
| Quote: |
E(x,t) = E0 cos(2*pi*x/lambda - wt)
with w, the angular frequency w=f*2*pi, and related to wavelength by
lambda=c/f. Say the wavelength is 100 nm.
|
so now you intruduced angular frequency-
on what groundas??
----------
| Quote: |
Consider the electron as a classical particle and the field a quantized
field (the opposite of the semiclassical approach of undergrad quantum
mechanics with a quantized particle and classical field). Watch it for a
short time. What will happen to it in that time interval?
-- |
again you introduced the field
yet it is that *field in* which 'the dead dog is burried'!!!
| Quote: |
One thing that might happen is nothing at all, which would be completely
uninteresting except that "nothing" is not an option in classical
mechanics.
Or the particle could gain momentum. How much momentum? You know
DeBroglie's relation, p=h/lambda. So the field could transfer a momentum
p = (6.626e-34 J-s) / (100 nm) = 6.626e-27 kg-m/s
Not 5e-27 kg-m/s, not 8e-27 kg-m/s, because those numbers are not
consistent with DeBroglie's relation. The wavelength is 100 nm, so the
momentum transferred is 6.626e-27 kg-m/s. And the same momentum and an
energy E=pc is removed from the field to satisfy conservation laws.
|
here again the field
i agree that it is the field that constraines the posibility
of disoersing out
yet the bigg question is
*how is that field doing it!!
and here is a question that non of you students asked
only 'old catto' asked
yes indeed the field was bouncing back particles to keep them
'unser its controll'
but how come??!!
if a particle has a momnentum in the 'out direction'
it is knoked back by the field but ... (listren carefully)
if(the field) it got a momentum out (from the 'disobediant' particle)
something in the *field* must get the momentum 'out' !
so some of it must 'run in out direction'
so now the million $ question:
what is now keeping that miserable 'field peace ' from running out ??
if you say ( another 'loyal' part of the field!
than i go on questioning:
waht keeps that other 'loyal' agent (that keeps th eintererest of the
field
to hold in all his 'citizens'
would you say :another loyal agent of the field ???
we got here a mathematical prove that is is impossible!!
only now you are able to understand my idea about the 'Circlon'
a particle that moves **naturally** (repeat) naturally**-
in a curved (or circular path!!!!
that idea is INAVITABLE!!!!!
once there is such a particle
all my above question come to rest!!
nothing is in a hury to run away
and if it misses the 'target' 'no problem'
it remained not far away haveing another chance
kepps on rotating in the *confined volume* and not getting lost
so easy, unless something else like that starnge particle
is kicking it out
but in that case the 'filed' can get other relpacement guest
like th elost one from the neighbourhood.
it is jsr a brief explanatin
but you could do it youself just with some creative immagination
and very simple physic slogic
the only innovationis to accelt that starnge basic particle
that moves naturally in a curved path
(only that 'Circlon' is behaving like that not the other bigg particles
!!
does it make some sense to you??
btw again i appreciate the skepticism that you started mentioned above
about the 'virtal photons ' and other usupoted' mumbling expalnation
of SM.
from now on i am not daring to call you a parrot anymore (
you can still call me a crackpot ... (
btw
you can see my ]circlon idea at the end of my site- at the appendix
i show there in principle how it can produce attraction force
so bottom line;
all fields are not done by photons but *by something else*!!!
that never occured to anyone else
(because of laziness to ask embarasing questions .....)
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------
"A
| Quote: | photon has been exchanged."
If you're wondering why you don't see a little billiard ball knocking into
the electron in that description, it's because it isn't there. The
electron receives a sudden and finite kick, it is AS IF a particle knocked
into it. The picture of a particle hitting the electron is a metaphor for
the interaction. But fundamentally it is a field that obeys DeBroglie's
relation. "Photon" is just a word that labels that type of interaction
with the field.
The electron might get a second momentum kick, and a third, etc. That's
complicated a bit by the Doppler shifting of the field relative to a
moving electron, and the kicks being in different directions. But it's
essentially the same physics.
Going back to your question,
"What is the experimental prove (repeat) *experimental prove*
- (as commonly is concidered to be experimental prove)--
that the photon is an attraction force producer?"
The proof is that attractive forces exist. The attraction is not CAUSED
by photons, it is CALLED photons. "A photon has been exchanged" when
momentum is transfered from the field to the particle, and F=dp/dt.
Zigoteau's suggestion that you pick up bits of paper with a charged comb
was not so facetious after all.
that was 1
2
why should the photons that are radiated from aprticle A
hit the target that is called particle B ??
why should it not be radiated in all directions around A??
These other questions are predicated on the billiard ball model of the
photon. And they're very reasonable questions from a viewpoint that seems
to be the inevitable result of the sorts of literature that tends to be
written about the subject. To answer, I say heed Wald's advice that
quantum field theory is a theory of fields. There is a particle
interpretation, but particles don't have to be invoked.
you could say:
the electric field is keeping them from running out but ....
you forgot that just now you claimed that
'it is the photons' that make the electric field !!
so ...
'the photons that make the electric field and move in stright lines
are controlling themselves to ....... move in a concised volume??
dont you see the clumsy stupidity of it ???
and you know where from that stupidity comes??
yoy whant beleive it :
Yes, I see the clumsy stupidity of it. The descriptions of virtual
particles filling the layman's literature are horrible and misleading, and
even in most textbooks it's not a lot better. (Greiner's and Wald's books
are noteworthy exceptions. I didn't just pull this stuff out of my ass.)
The clumsy stupidity of it has bothered me for a long time, I've worked
hard to try to come to grips with it. The clumsy stupidity doesn't come
from the theory, it comes from interpretations of the theory. I can't
say I've mastered the subject, and I can't say my own explanation is not
clumsy and stupid. But as clumsy and stupid as my explanation might be,
it's better than what you'll find in most books, even if it is harder to
explain and harder to understand. Photons do what the field does because
when the field does something we call it a photon. It's as simple as
that, short of understanding the quantum theory of fields.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zigoteau
science forum addict
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:13 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hi, Greg,
| Quote: | The proof is that attractive forces exist. The attraction is not CAUSED
by photons, it is CALLED photons. "A photon has been exchanged" when
momentum is transfered from the field to the particle, and F=dp/dt.
Zigoteau's suggestion that you pick up bits of paper with a charged comb
was not so facetious after all.
|
Me, facetious? Heaven forbid!
In all the years I have exchanged messages with Yehiel, he has never
once quoted any math or any experimental evidence to support his rather
original point of view. While I do not go along with much of the
name-calling to be found in this DG, I do think that negative feedback
has an important role in human affairs, not just in analog electronics.
I do not wish to insult Yehiel. However I think to ignore him would be
equally as rude. I don't like treating him with disrespect, and I try
not to let it get out of hand, but a long exchange of the sort you are
engaged in here also seems rather pointless.
There is a tendency in some quarters to think that attention should be
paid only to experiments performed with expensive equipment under
unusual conditions. The event horizon of black holes. Zero-point
fluctuations in ultra-high vacuum. Awe. Mystery. Respect for the high
priests of the religion of science. I, on the other hand, think that
the best experiment is a quick experiment, that can be carried out with
materials commonly to hand. The best proof of the wave nature of light
is not the diffraction experiment performed with two precision-machined
slits illuminated by an expensive laser, but the hologram on the credit
card in everybody's pocket. Etc., etc.
The schizophrenia induced by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics has led to various abuses of language which are an incredible
stumbling block for students of the subject. Over the years I have come
across many people who pretend to understand QM. Particularly if their
job description requires it, they get highly offended and even vicious
if you suggest that they do not. It is only the greatest who, like
Richard Feynman, one of the founders of modern QFT, are able to admit
that they do not understand it.
Various statements about photons can only be understood if you keep a
firm grasp on how they translate into experiment. Hence my experiment
with a comb attracting pieces of paper, which of course is a modernized
version of the original experimental evidence, known to the Greeks,
about the properties of rubbed elektron, amber.
The word 'photon' was introduced to describe the particulate aspects of
the electromagnetic field. It is commonly used - and why not? - to
include the wave aspects. Photons can not only give rise to an
attraction, they can also cause repulsion.
If Yehiel has a point at all, it is that the proof of light being an EM
wave is only indirect. However, since he apparently knows none of the
theory or its mathematical analysis, it's a waste of time carrying on a
long exchange with him.
Cheers,
Zigoteau. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119051391.095440.57410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
snipped
Question:
Y. Porat poses that a photon is a created by an EM field.
You're stating here that a photon IS an EM field in motion.
So if a photon is a chargeless, massless EM field in motion, does that
imply
that the other 3 forces of nature have similar moving fields that can be
disassociated from their source particles? If no, then how can this be
the
case with a photon?
Yes, it does imply that, exactly.
Weak force is mediated by the W+, W-, and Z, which serve exactly the
same role as the photon.
Strong force is mediated by eight varieties of gluons, which serve
exactly the same role as the photon.
(The above have been experimentally verified.)
Gravitational force is *presumed* to be mediated by something that is
probably a spin 2 massless graviton, though a coherent quantum theory
of gravity is not yet in hand.
(This one has not been verified.)
|
This is just an opinion, but it seems that there are far too many particles
in quantum particle physics to constitute a simple design. With so many
different particles flying around, or mearing themselves across the universe
and then condensing on one point after interaction with some stimulus, it
leaves me wondering how anything can ever achieve low entropy.
| Quote: |
I have no problems accepting the notion that a photon is a moment of
momentum caused by a shock wave in an EM field generated by a moving,
charged particle. That makes perfect sense. But to say that a photon is
a
moving EM field packet is the same thing as saying that the static EM
field
of a given charged particle is merely an array of static photons. Since
photons cannot be static by definition, then something's wrong with
either
your notion or my understanding, and I would greatly appreciate a
correction
if it's me.
Static field does not imply static photons. Static field is a ensemble
average of a sea of photons.
PD
|
What you've said here implies that the fields around charged particles
*MUST* fluctuate. So if the field of a charged particle, say an electron, is
in a constant state of flux, then what is the quantum by which the field
changes? If it's not in integer multiples of a fixed quantity, then doesn't
that mean that this model is suspect?
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hi Zigoteau
it is obviuos that this last intervention here is if to put it mildly-
nasty!!!
you see the malicious point of yours or you are not even aware of it:
not only that you dont understand what you are talking from physics
sense
point of view
you are maliciously interveaning with some other man s discusions with
me!!
with an obvious interst to sabotage it !!
what the hell is you interst to prevent my discusion with Hansen
while he satrt to understand me ???
what the hell is it your damn business??
it is obvious that you are in that case an agent of some gang!!
with interests to sabotage me ?? no other reasonable explanation!!
that is not a behavious of an innocent scintist
that is a behaviour of an some organizations agent!!
yet Mr Zigoteau
before dealing with mathematics you have to deal with physics sense!
you could not aswe my trivail questions about the
'photon being the em producer
only a parrot like you could overlook such simple questions
(another posibility : a personal politics agent!!!)
so Mr Hansen and others
pleae note Mr Zigoteau nasty behaviour and just bypass him-
just in case you consider youself serious and honest scientists
(that advance in scince is in their interest)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hansen
just a little remark
you mentioned my discusions with Hymann
he was considered a respactable scintist
yet while i suggested the unprecedented sugestion of defining
the smallest mass of the photon
the reat scintist with all his ass full of mathematics
invented the Fertz !! do you remembet the Fertz??
if not i will remind it to you (he invented it together with the other
Hydelberg crook
feuerbacher another ass ful of mathematics)
so the fertz is (please sit still)
it is a photon with the frequency of one cycle per .......... one
year!!
got it ??
the slowest photon even found experimentally is about 1 hertz!!
the genious of hydelberg(with his great methematics education)
agreed that one superfertz is possible:
one cycle per .... 100 billion years di dyou got what does it mean
methematiciance without the slightest physics logic ???!!!
so before you start you mathematics you have to thing physics!!
and that is what all the parrots of the worled didnt do
before swolowing the stupidity that
*photons are producing the em field !!!*
by just some simple exanination they could realise that it is nonsense
physics
yet noone of those mathematicians did it why??
because it is not enough to be a parrot you gt to have a mind of
yourself
with some basic physics understanding.
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
In article <1119243716.326415.209770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
| Quote: |
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1119188548.418495.179170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
because it is confuscation
I suggest you don't know what photons are.
do you know aht thety are??!!
it is not a mathematical artifact
is is a physical creation!!
you would understand that you are talking nonsense physics !!
see later.
you didn't believe me. I think now it's time for you to do the same thing
I did-- buy some books, read them, learn the theory. Then you won't have
to ask on Usenet and tell people they're wrong when they try to answer.
-----------
i have a clue that i was studying about photons may be before you were
born...
no need for more parroting old books
we need some new nooks !! got it?
see later.
----
so i expect from you to be honest and to admit that
there is no experiemntal evidence to prove
that
photons are 'the field makers'
nor experimental prove that photons are attraction force agents!!
Why should they not cause attraction? Is it sensible that photons could
cause repulsion?
-----------
and you what to tteach me physics logic ??
a photon tha thas momentum right??
waht is momentum? it is a vector with a direction
so if it hits a body particle
waht will be th edirection of that force of hitting
will it be to reject the body or to move it
closer inopposite to the direction of photon movement!!
now even if you would say that its momentum includes
say a rotational momentum (that has not been verified yet)
so waht will be the result of such collision??
will it be in opposite direction of the photons movement??
That's what I thought. You said you don't think of photons as little
billiard balls that knock into electrons. But here you've just given a
little billiard ball model of the photon. You think of the attractive
force as a photon going from left to right, hitting an electron, and
making the electron go left, which it obvously can't do because the photon
was going to the right. A billiard ball going to the right doesn't strike
a second ball and make it go left.
That's not what a photon is. That's what a million science fans think a
photon is. Even in my classes on quantum field theory, that's the picture
the students got of photons. In one session a fellow student, like you,
asked how photon exchange can cause an attractive force. The professor
said something about uncertainty in where the photon is created. The
student said "Oh, that makes sense. Wait, no it doesn't!" He was right,
it didn't make sense.
Let me try to illustrate photons with a simple thought experiment-- a
charged particle in a plane wave radiation field. The radiation has a
single wavelength, lambda, and a form like
---------------
hansen
first let me thank you for your detailed naswer
(you start to think and not to parrot and that is a good move)
yet
just above is the 'banana' that you started to slipp on.... (:-)
the moment you intruduce into the discussion the term FIELD
thats the moment in which you start to slipp!!
we are not talking about a field we are talking about the photon
once you say a 'filed' and unintentionally *asume* that that field is
done by a photon thtas where you missed the trarget!!
that is the sort of 'X=X' prove......
|
I've deliberately centered the discussion on the field because the
particle is not necessary! The particle is an interpretation, but when
people think of quantum particles as if they were classical particles,
like little billiard balls the behave the way the big billiard balls do,
it just confuses them. The particle is something extra thrown into the
theory, undoubtedly because it evolved from the quantum theory of
particles. I want you to get away from thinking of the photon as a
particle. It is a phenomenon, it is something that the field does. They
say "a photon has been exchanged" when momentum is transferred to or from
the field. Don't try to give it any more meaning than that.
| Quote: |
i will let you know what is my secret revolusionary understanding and
suggestion about
what any field must have in its basic.
anyway it cannot be a photon
as you later youself started to get it folowing my
next 'difficult questions ' that no one before took care to ask.
(amazingly unexplained why???....ie why not asked before !! )
---------------
E(x,t) = E0 cos(2*pi*x/lambda - wt)
with w, the angular frequency w=f*2*pi, and related to wavelength by
lambda=c/f. Say the wavelength is 100 nm.
so now you intruduced angular frequency-
on what groundas??
|
DeBroglie's relation relates a momentum to a wavelength. For simplicity I
wanted a field with a single wavelength so there would be only one
momentum to talk about.
If you want to work with a different field, you can Fourier transform it
to decompose it into momentum states. In particular, a static field can
be decomposed into momentum states, and the momentum transferred to the
electron would be a superposition of all possible momentum transfers from
each of those states. But that just makes things complicated.
| Quote: | ----------
Consider the electron as a classical particle and the field a quantized
field (the opposite of the semiclassical approach of undergrad quantum
mechanics with a quantized particle and classical field). Watch it for a
short time. What will happen to it in that time interval?
--
again you introduced the field
yet it is that *field in* which 'the dead dog is burried'!!!
One thing that might happen is nothing at all, which would be completely
uninteresting except that "nothing" is not an option in classical
mechanics.
Or the particle could gain momentum. How much momentum? You know
DeBroglie's relation, p=h/lambda. So the field could transfer a momentum
p = (6.626e-34 J-s) / (100 nm) = 6.626e-27 kg-m/s
Not 5e-27 kg-m/s, not 8e-27 kg-m/s, because those numbers are not
consistent with DeBroglie's relation. The wavelength is 100 nm, so the
momentum transferred is 6.626e-27 kg-m/s. And the same momentum and an
energy E=pc is removed from the field to satisfy conservation laws.
here again the field
i agree that it is the field that constraines the posibility
of disoersing out
yet the bigg question is
*how is that field doing it!!
and here is a question that non of you students asked
only 'old catto' asked
yes indeed the field was bouncing back particles to keep them
'unser its controll'
|
Again with the particles. Get rid of the particles! The theory does not
require particles. If you think of quantum particles as little billiard
balls, it's best not to think about them at all. If you want to think of
the particles, then accept that they don't act like classical billiard
balls that transfer momentum by colliding.
You have your own ideas about circlons. And in the context of your
theory, that's fine. A different theory means different assumptions and
different definitions. But when you talk about quantum field theory, you
just shouldn't think of photons as little billiard balls. It's hard not
to, with the way authors write about it.
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zigoteau
science forum addict
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:46 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hi, Greg,
| Quote: | Me, facetious? Heaven forbid!
Bug rakes and snot-rags are, of course, standard pieces of sober
scientific equipment.
|
I might possibly have been in a bad mood when I wrote that particular
reply, but yes, any self-respecting scientist should have one of each
secreted around his/her person. For the odd experiment with static
electricity. Handkerchiefs are also very handy for wiping up chemical
spills (My wife used to complain bitterly).
| Quote: | DG-- dewsgroup? You needed to blow your nose?
|
I deeded to blow by dose with by S-R . . .
| Quote: | It must be something
German.
|
Bound to be. I was thinking of 'discussion group'. Sam and Fred do try
to keep us abreast of the news, but does this term apply to "Dr.
Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy", "The Lorentz Transformation for
Velocity", and so on?
| Quote: | It is only the greatest who, like
Richard Feynman, one of the founders of modern QFT, are able to admit
that they do not understand it.
Maybe there's a little bit of the "But you have to be good enough to get
away with it" thing going on there. Or just mature enough. I'd noticed,
at least in my part of the world when I was growing up, that toddlers can
wear shirts with Mickey Mouse. And then they get into the teenage years
and they can't wear Mickey Mouse any more, they have to dress more like
grown-ups. And then when they grow up they can wear Mickey Mouse again.
|
There's more than a grain of truth there.
Cheers,
Zigoteau. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:09 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
In article <1119258821.003622.320130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Zigoteau <zigoteau@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi, Greg,
The proof is that attractive forces exist. The attraction is not CAUSED
by photons, it is CALLED photons. "A photon has been exchanged" when
momentum is transfered from the field to the particle, and F=dp/dt.
Zigoteau's suggestion that you pick up bits of paper with a charged comb
was not so facetious after all.
Me, facetious? Heaven forbid!
|
Bug rakes and snot-rags are, of course, standard peices of sober
scientific equipment.
| Quote: |
In all the years I have exchanged messages with Yehiel, he has never
once quoted any math or any experimental evidence to support his rather
original point of view. While I do not go along with much of the
name-calling to be found in this DG, I do think that negative feedback
has an important role in human affairs, not just in analog electronics.
I do not wish to insult Yehiel. However I think to ignore him would be
equally as rude. I don't like treating him with disrespect, and I try
not to let it get out of hand, but a long exchange of the sort you are
engaged in here also seems rather pointless.
|
I try to limit myself to once around the circle. The thought experiment
was something new that I wanted to try out, but there would be no point in
going over it again.
DG-- dewsgroup? You needed to blow your nose? It must be something
German.
| Quote: |
There is a tendency in some quarters to think that attention should be
paid only to experiments performed with expensive equipment under
unusual conditions. The event horizon of black holes. Zero-point
fluctuations in ultra-high vacuum. Awe. Mystery. Respect for the high
priests of the religion of science.
|
Fear me, I am physicist!
| Quote: | I, on the other hand, think that
the best experiment is a quick experiment, that can be carried out with
materials commonly to hand. The best proof of the wave nature of light
is not the diffraction experiment performed with two precision-machined
slits illuminated by an expensive laser, but the hologram on the credit
card in everybody's pocket. Etc., etc.
|
Except sometimes they don't think they're doing science if there isn't
enough awe, mystery, and ritual.
| Quote: |
The schizophrenia induced by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics has led to various abuses of language which are an incredible
stumbling block for students of the subject. Over the years I have come
across many people who pretend to understand QM. Particularly if their
job description requires it, they get highly offended and even vicious
if you suggest that they do not. It is only the greatest who, like
Richard Feynman, one of the founders of modern QFT, are able to admit
that they do not understand it.
|
Maybe there's a little bit of the "But you have to be good enough to get
away with it" thing going on there. Or just mature enough. I'd noticed,
at least in my part of the world when I was growing up, that toddlers can
wear shirts with Mickey Mouse. And then they get into the teenage years
and they can't wear Mickey Mouse any more, they have to dress more like
grown-ups. And then when they grow up they can wear Mickey Mouse again.
| Quote: |
Various statements about photons can only be understood if you keep a
firm grasp on how they translate into experiment. Hence my experiment
with a comb attracting pieces of paper, which of course is a modernized
version of the original experimental evidence, known to the Greeks,
about the properties of rubbed elektron, amber.
The word 'photon' was introduced to describe the particulate aspects of
the electromagnetic field. It is commonly used - and why not? - to
include the wave aspects. Photons can not only give rise to an
attraction, they can also cause repulsion.
If Yehiel has a point at all, it is that the proof of light being an EM
wave is only indirect. However, since he apparently knows none of the
theory or its mathematical analysis, it's a waste of time carrying on a
long exchange with him.
|
He's a little frustrating to be engaged with, because I keep thinking that
after all these years, since he seems interested, he should have learned a
lot of physics by now, things that bear directly on his theory. Like what
is the quadrupole moment of his eel nuclei, and what moments have been
measured? I think it was Franz that went into that with him, long enough
ago that Porat could have stuck his nose in a few textbooks, scribbled out
a few predictions, and made a few trips to a research library. But I
don't think he has. I wonder sometimes what some people think it means to
"do science".
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:43 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Infrared Sauna | Buy Anything On eBay | Adverse Credit Remortgage | Send Free Text Message | 実験機器 研究機器 科学機器 マグネ
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
