Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!


surrealistic-dr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> harry wrote:
> > surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Harry wrote:
> > > > <surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > > > > Einstein made it very clear in his essays, even if SR books do not. To
> > > > > Einstein, such an absolute space (i.e., inertial frame) would imply
> > > > > that Nature has arbitrarily selected one inertial frame out of an
> > > > > infinite number of them to be special (i.e., the laws of
> > > > > electrodynamics are "true" in that frame only because measuring rods
> > > > > and clocks are undistorted in that frame). Einstein regarded such a
> > > > > possibility as a violation of his philosophic notion of the harmony of
> > > > > nature and the egalitarianism of inertial frames (PoR). He also claimed
> > > > > that nature does not seem to reveal any such frame in practice: Neither
> > > > > the mechanics of Newton nor any experiment in electrodynamics seems to
> > > > > reveal that any inertial frame is any different for the invention of
> > > > > the laws of physics from any other inertial frame. So, to Einstein, at
> > > > > heart Nature acts to rigorously maintain the PoR and the Light
> > > > > Principle (locally), but not the dependence of light speed on the
> > > > > source's motion. I emphasize that when I say "speed," I mean actual
> > > > > measured speed, not some hypothetical, unmeasurable speed.
> > > >
> > > > I also read all that. But what I meant, can you clarify the physical light
> > > > propagation model that Einstein had in mind?
> > >
> > > I can't. And I don't think it can be done, for reasons I gave above.
> > > Einstein referred to SR as a principle (as opposed to a constructive)
> > > theory because it lacked any attempt whatsoever to provide a
> > > hypothetical model of propagation of E&M effects.
> >
> > There is a difference between not doing something, claiming that it
> > can't be done, and the fact if something may be possible or not, in
> > principle.
>
> I am referring to inventing a model of a "true" photon path with the
> photon modeled as a point particle.
>
> >
> > > He said that SR was
> > > the logical step away from Maxwell's mechanical ether, taking in the
> > > practice of late ninteenth century physicists to treat the E and B
> > > fields as irreducible to mechanical explanation. In other words, their
> > > habit was to treat the E and B fields as described solely by the
> > > so-called Maxwell equations and leave it at that, leaving the ether as
> > > superfluous to calculation. If you want a model of light propagation
> > > based on SR, see Feynman's treatment in his book QED.
> >
> > As I remarked in another posting, Feynman admitted that QED is not
> > capable of doing that - at least not at that time, and I never read
> > something new. I now quote him:
> >
> > "The situation today is, we haven't got a good model to explain partial
> > reflection by two surfaces; we just calculate the probability"
>
>
> I'm talking about SOME model, "good" or not good: Feynman's model of
> light propagation was that light takes all paths through spacetime to
> get from source to destination. This model does a lot of good
> prediction though. All you're admitting to is that commonsense models
> of quantum phenomena can be difficult, to say the least. Commonsense
> may not ever work at this level.

All you are saying is that such a model hasn't been found yet, and that
we don't really need them to make some progress anyway.

> Commonsense has been shown to be a detriment to understanding physics
> in the first place. There is extensive liturature on this.

I don't need to read literature about other people's experience to know
my own. I only really understand SRT since the time that I could make
sense of it (which was about two or three years ago).

> > > I may be wrong, but I think that it was Heaviside who said, poetically,
> > > that electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations are the same thing.
> > >
> > > > Don't forget that Einstein
> > > > believed that photons really travel from A to B, and that light speed is
> > > > dictated by space.
> > >
> > > My only answer to that is to reply that Einstein said that the MMX null
> > > result is strange. He knew that light was not obeying commonsense,
> > > whatever it was really obeying.
> >
> > Perhaps he *thought* so. Belief in magic makes one just give up trying
> > to find commonsense explanations - but Einstein did try to find
> > commonsense explanations of quantum physics.
>
> I didn't say "magic."

I did; and the field concept started out as as common-sense too.

Cheers,
Harald

> Einstein attempted to find field-theoretic
> solutions to the problems he wanted to work on in the second have of
> his life, but the field concept is a recent invention in physics, thus
> it is not commonsensical.

.

Relevant Pages