Re: Photons

Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
My calendar shows 2007, not 1864. <shrug>
Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. The language we use is that of 2007, not 1864. You repeatedly and continually confuse yourself by not realizing this. Language evolves. As does the understanding of physics. <shrug>

It is irrelevant as I was pointing out that the meaning is clearly not as it was then but that meaning does not appear to have been replaced by anything meaningful from a physical stand point.

In QED, photons are the embodiment of the electromagnetic field.
That sentence does not actually mean anything unless it is that the aether has been renamed an 'electromagnetic continuum' and a photon is an event in that continuum.

Not true. I have no idea why you attempt to resurrect an "aether" here, except that it is an artifact of your lack of understanding of the language and concepts of modern physics.

Explain what your sentence means. Does it mean anything more specific than "photons are associated with light, light is associated with electromagnetic fields, therefore photons are associated with electromagnetic fields" Real vague hand wavy stuff. Define 'embodiment' and explain how it differs from 'associated with'.



Answer the simple question "what do you mean by a field".

A field is a function on the manifold.

If you are using 'manifold' in the mathematical sense you are talking maths. We are agreed what a 'field' is from a mathematical standpoint.

OTOH if as is suggested by the following article

"The Space-Time Manifold as a Critical Solid" -Author: Peter Orland

the manifold is now to be considered as a solid then it is simply the aether with the dimension of time added :o). I don't believe that is a commonly held view.

So a scalar field is a mapping of points in the manifold to a real value; a vector field maps points of the manifold to vector values, etc.

Yes we are agreed on what a field is mathematically. What is it physically?



The photon field is a (quantum) complex vector field.


I refer to circa Maxwell because then there was a clear idea of what a field was in respect of the theory of the time.

I doubt that very much. I think fields were quite mysterious back then.

That is an admission that what a field is, is now a total mystery which was my point. I have suggested the only none aether, physical interpretation of a field which I can come up with. You have yet to produce an alternative. Mine requires that action-at-a-distance is the axiomatric way all force acts and that a field simply maps action-at-a-distance force. It would however be impossible for such a field to exist without something causing it. i.e. a charge causing an electrostatic field or moving charges producing an electromagnetic field.

Somewhere around 1920-30 someone decided there was no aether so that idea was no longer valid. What you had was a fudge. "let's still believe in 'fields' even if we don't know what we mean by 'field'".

This is complete fabrication on your part. You project your ignorance onto others.

OK replace it with what you think really happened. You can't. The idea of an electromagnetic field is left intellectually stranded because the idea of the aether on which it depended became unpopular.

Such transference is invalid: just because you don't understand something does not mean that nobody else does. <shrug>

If you 'understood' it you would be able to point out what replaced the 'stress in the either' concept of an electromagnetic field. You have demonstrated that you cannot. It is a mystery as to what a field now is. You are happy to continue using the maths of the field concept. Another example of "we have the maths who cares about the physics".



Maxwell's equations are based upon the properties of charge.
Maxwell's equations model the behaviour of light very well.
Therefore there is a link between charge and light.
Light is made up of photons therefore there must be a link between charge and photons.
Photons have associated fields consistent with moving charge.
Do you dispute any of the above statements?

Most of them. This is 2007, not 1864.

Please be specific. None of the above has changed.

1/ Maxwell's equations are based upon the properties of charge - historical fact. They were based upon the relationships produced
by Faraday.

2/ Maxwell's equations model the behaviour of light very well. They still do in the vast majority of applications.

3/ Therefore there is a link between charge and light. Otherwise it is pure coincidence that Maxwell's equations give accurate predictions.

4/ Light is made up of photons. I am not aware that has changed - you may know better.

5/ Therefore there must be a link between charge and photons. Logical deduction.


Trying to turn back the clock is not useful.

In what way is that 'turning back the clock'.


--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: massless or massive photon?
    ... It is an interesting link which shows the desperate measures which physics has adopted to *retain* the wave-partical duality and avoid the obvious conclusion that light is fundamentally particulate. ... What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent photons. ... chief among which is that the physical medium in which they travel must be dispersive - a technical term - a group of water waves will propagate together across a pond and will remain concentrated together in the form of a package. ... Those equations are based upon the behaviour of charge and only charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photons
    ... explain what you mean by a physical 'field' consistent with an acceptance of the no aether doctrine which you endorse. ... The question is no longer asked and yet another bit of unresolved physics is treated as if it has been satisfactorily resolved. ... Maxwell's equations are based upon the properties of charge. ... Light is made up of photons therefore there must be a link between charge and photons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ohanian describes "Einsteins Mistakes"
    ... Waldron suggested that photons consist of equal ... There are strong magnets and there are weak magnets. ... Suppose I have a positive probe charge at X. ... 1/ Magnetic and electric fields are not two separate phonomina but are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ohanian describes "Einsteins Mistakes"
    ... Waldron suggested that photons consist of equal positive ... There are strong magnets and there are weak magnets. ... Suppose I have a positive probe charge at X. ... The photoelectric effect shows that energy cannot be spread evenly ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The next ultimate jerseys?
    ... charged ions to cancel out the charge. ... Now maybe they just meant it had negative ions, ... the electromagnetic field decays incredibly quickly. ... much less affect blood flow. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)