Re: Critique of the "photon" theory of electromagnetic radiation
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:58:46 +0000 (UTC)
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Oz" <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:p48FmYAmtLXCFwdw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> |
> | [NB I just noticed the original poster was not aware that photons
from
> | different sources can and do interfere. Both lasers and radio
> | transmitters of adequate stability.]
> |
> | >A single
> | >photon does not "spread out" over the entire Universe. EMR does
that;
> | >as you go further away from the source, you merely have less
photons per
> | >area. Now if a photon is just a "wavicle", what keeps it from
> | >dispersing in the relativistic medium? This, I think, is the big
reason
> | >for the particle concept for photons. But more is being
understood
> | >about how photons can be more like "wavicles".
> |
> | I was trying to avoid a discussion about waves and photons....
> |
> | After all I just get blinded by serious maths whenever I try.
> |
> | However I do not accept that this is a valid argument.
>
> Hmm... I am not sure what you mean by "this" exactly. Photons as
> wavicles?
>
> | 1) For any give emission of a photon by an atom we can locally
obtain
> | the direction of emission from the recoil of the emitting atom (to
some
> | level of accuracy).
>
> However, this limits the energy of a photon to that range which would
> recoil just one atom. Can a lower energy photon recoil just one
atom?
>
> | 2) This concludes the description as far as the emission is
concerned.
> |
> | 3) Similarly for any given absorption (why is this not spelled
> | absorbtion to go with absorb?) we can locally obtain the direction
the
> | photon came from by measuring the recoil.
>
> Same argument. And a noticable recoil of an atom would maybe require
a
> photon in the range of going from soft to hard photons.
>
> | 4) This concludes the description as far as absorption is
concerned.
> |
> | 5) We note that (1) is the time-reversed description of (3).
> |
> | Following the age-old technique of physicists we model this by
sweeping
> | as much complexity under the carpet and combining the two pictures
by
>
> | postulating an unobserved particle with the properties of a photon.
Its
> | a transmitted chunk of energy-momentum-spin. Much like a
neutrino....
>
> Yes, only a boson instead of a fermion.
>
> | Unfortunately this description is just that, a description, and
isn't
> | much help in predicting. Predictive techniques have been
developed..
> |
> | Even worse I suspect that a QM description of a single photon with
a
> | reasonably well-defined momentum (ie direction) would be somewhat
non-
> | trivial to set up. A complex function of an infinity of states with
> | expectation one, whether its done in particle or wave formulation.
I
> | find it odd that such a simple, in fact the simplest, photon
interaction
> | requires such a heavyweight description at the 'fundamental' level.
One
> | would think such a description would be a simple basic function of
QM.
> | But I digress....
>
> In the relativistic medium picture, it is even more complex. Photons
in
> QED looks like a simplification compared to that. ;-) Photons in the
> relativistic medium picture have to have a mix of both electroweak
and
> strong in them. With low energy photons not have very much of the
> strong force mixed in but high energy photons should have a higher
> degree of the strong force mixed in. Seems logical since high energy
> photons can produce hadrons. Charge is charge. We just happen to
have
> different kinds of charge. It's a mechanical process even if it is
> quantum *mechanical*.
>
> | Its quite interesting that typically (that is in a low-noise
situation)
> | we detect single photons when the detector has been exposed to an
> | adequate flux of EM radiation such as to accumulate about a
photonsworth
> | of energy. This is entirely consistent with photons actually being
EM
> | waves. The fact that we emit and absorb precisely a photonsworth
says
> | more about the quantised emitters and detectors (exemplified by
atoms)
> | than of the quantum nature (if any) of the EM wave itself.
>
> Yes, it is easy to take the viewpoint that the quantum nature of
photons
> is from the emitters and detectors. For me that seems to go against
the
> Standard Model where all the elementary particles are excitations of
the
> quantum "vacuum". This indicates to me that space-time and matter
are
> "composed" of the same stuff. Just configured differently. If that
is
> the case, then hbar has to be a "vacuum" process just like c. This
> means a free space electromagnetic field can be quantized. IMHO, it
is.
> There is very little doubt in my mind that both space-time and matter
> are quantized and composed of the same "stuff". If you haven't read
it
> yet, I highly suggest Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".
He
> concludes with the proposal that all physics is emergent from
analogies
> of superfluid helium studies with the quantum "vacuum" except for
hbar.
> Hbar remains fundamental. For now. I can see that what is might be
> more fundamental than hbar is a fractal of the sqrt(hbar). The key
is
> the the geometrical configuration of the interactions of the
fundamental
> entities that make all of this. Is string theory the answer to the
hbar
> question? Maybe.
>
> FrediFizzx
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
I for one and I think others admire the research
to describe a photon between the times it's emitted
and absorbed. It's very difficult to test that
photon structure experimentally, but it would be neat
if a photon structure was imposed upon a g-field
rationally and GR's light deflection and attenuation
predictions were to be found within some common
Maxwell field, as well as GR, to lead to a formalized
unification of EM and GR.
Recently, Jay Yablon, and Fred Diether have pointed
out an AE idea about the *strength* of Equations,
specifically AE's book, "Meaning of Relativity",
in the section on Non-symmetric Field (pgs 133-139
are dedicated to that topic).
I'll quote from page, 139,
"It is surprising that the gravitational equations
for empty space determine their field just as
strongly as do Maxwell's equations in the case of
the electromagnetic field."
AE is quite specific about equation strength, and
he provides the formula and the quantity "z" to
designate that.
In my understanding if the Maxwell's z and the GR's
z are equal, then they those equations are compatible,
in the sense the can be inter-mixed, I think a
mathematical physicts may provide a better explanation,
and invited.
So there is a good reason the EM structure of a
photon is compatible relationally with a g-field.
Hence the photon structure can be subject to
GR effects, and is therefore able to be examined,
from a theortical perspective as a test.
Another *benchmark* test for a photon test relates
to SR and Doppler Effects.
In that case we set up a gedanken with a photon
bouncing between relatively moving mirrors.
Suppose mirror A and B are receding, and a
photon is ping-ponging between the two, well
the photon will be Doppler-shifted by each
reflection, I think that's apparent, as measured
by someone at either mirror.
The 2 mirrors plus the photon are a "closed"
system and therefore a conserved system, Ok?
Stop here
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Critique of the "photon" theory of electromagnetic radiation
- From: Robin Whittle
- Critique of the "photon" theory of electromagnetic radiation
- Prev by Date: Re: Newbie - Quantum Mystery #1
- Next by Date: Re: What happens if time is discrete?
- Previous by thread: Re: Critique of the "photon" theory of electromagnetic radiation
- Next by thread: Re: Critique of the "photon" theory of electromagnetic radiation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
