Re: wave and light
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 09/19/04
- Next message: CJS: "Re: How to lose an argument"
- Previous message: nick: "Re: how to solve them?"
- In reply to: zigoteau: "Re: wave and light"
- Next in thread: Harry Conover: "Re: wave and light"
- Reply: Harry Conover: "Re: wave and light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Sep 2004 11:50:04 -0700
zigoteau@yahoo.com (zigoteau) wrote in message news:<a836cacf.0409190500.6a7f8d83@posting.google.com>...
> srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0409181148.44b6bce2@posting.google.com>...
>
> Hi, André
>
> > > Of course EM waves exist. Light is an EM wave.
> >
> > To my knowledge, since Wien and Planck, we know that this is no so.
>
> I think you're arguing about definitions here and not about reality.
> There is enough evidence out there to indicate that light involves
> electric and magnetic fields, whatever the underlying physical basis
> of such fields is.
I would rather formulate this as
There is enough evidence out there to indicate that light involves
discrete particles having both electric and magnetic aspects, whatever
the underlying physical basis of such aspects may be.
> Wien and Planck's evidence for quantization comes on top of this.
Wien and Planck's evidence confimed by the photoelectric proof,
are the evidence that confirms the quantized nature of EM energy.
> The word "wave" is a perfectly good English word to describe what
> you get at the beach.
At the macro level yes, but at the fundamental level, no way.
> Now we know that water is quantized, and the quantum of water is
> symbolized H2O. Does that make a water wave not a wave? Of course
> not.
Same thing for light.
> It just makes light another example of a quantum wave. A quantized
> EM wave.
A sine wave is mathematically the same as a simple circular orbital
motion or a cyclic pulsation.
Any cyclic process can be represented by mathematical wave treatment.
This is why I agree that mathematical "wave" treatment is adequate.
However, I disagree that discrete cyclic EM processes at the fundamental
level can be waves.
> > Even if plane wave treatment gives precise results at the macro level
> > this can't mean that light is not quantized at the fundamental level.
> >
> > Light has been proven ad noseam to be physically quantized and no
> > argument for or against can change anything about it.
>
> Absolutely. You will get no argument from me on that point at all.
Fine.
> > > > Maxwell's original theory (before the idea of photons was conceived
> > > > of) has traditionally been dealt with strictly from the mathematical
> > > > point of view offered by plane wave treatment, which resulted,
> > > > obviously, in the space geometry that mandatorily must underlie it
> > > > to perpetually remain obscured.
> > >
> > > Obviously?
> >
> > Not obvious to all, obviously :-]
>
> I am glad that you recognize that there are other people who think
> differently from you.
To my knowledge, all orthodox physicists think differently from me.
The Copenhagen School of thought is a one way street with no hope of
back tracking.
> > > This all seems OK, eve if the way you express it suggests you don't
> > > know how to analyze it.
> >
> > Thank you for your appreciation. You mean of course that I don't
> > analyze it in sync with orthodoxy. I agree. I am totally unorthodox.
>
> I am also unorthodox around the edges. Je n'ai pas choisi mon nom de
> clavier par hazard. I, too, am dissatisfied with many aspects of
> current physical theory.
Many say they are.
At the end of the day, I always found that, without exception, all were
unable to step out, even momentarily, of the restrictive frames of
accepted theories: Copenhagen interpretation of QM, CM, QED, QFT, SR
and GR.
Any attempt at widening the scope causes them to immediately lose
footing and conclude to ignorance of some aspect of the restricted
frames (just like you are, apparently).
Dead end. Waste of time.
> However I don't believe that it is possible to improve on current
> quantum field theory without understanding it.
Why should I try to improve on it. It is fine as it is.
As I said, my main interest is understanding physical reality,
not attempting to expand existing restricted theories to
hypothetical better fit.
Subsets cannot be made to include supersets.
Once again, Dead end. Waste of time.
> Each of the axioms of QFT was adopted in an attempt to explain
> experimental observations. Many of the predictions of QFT are in
> excellent agreement with experiment. Because of this excellent
> agreement, any improved theory is bound to have a very detailed
> correspondence with QFT.
No dount. Nothing more than agreeing with physical reality is required
of any theory.
> > > Well of course, real light beams usually become weaker with distance,
> > > although using a lens you can get the intensity to increase for a bit.
> >
> > Real "light beams" become "weaker" with distance only because of
> > angular spread of the photon stream. Don't forget that each individual
> > photon is emitted by a different quantum jump of an electron moving
> > to a lower orbital in as many atoms, not even considering repetitions
> > on the same atoms or quantum jumps to lower states in nuclei.
>
> You continue to talk about photons as if they had the same
> individuality as classical particles. They do not.
So you think that a photon being emitted when an electron jumps
from an excited state to a lower energy state makes it a classical
particle?
I disagree.
> > > Maxwell lived a long time ago, and various aspects of the analysis
> > > have become easier with new methods.
> >
> > Not for this particular problem, to my knowledge.
>
> This indicates that your knowledge.is lacking
Feel free to think so.
If you think that Maxwell's theory allows less than infinite energy
at a hypothetical point-like EM event, then I think you yourself do
not understand the original Maxwell theory correctly.
> > > No. Your statement here suggests that you don't know any quantum field
> > > theory.
> >
> > I know about QFT. Although mathematically useful, I disagree that it
> > represents fundamental physical reality. Just like Maxwell's theory,
> > although useful and precise at the macro level, can't account for
> > quantization.
>
> We can agree on that
>
> > > > Since the photon concept (discrete EM events individually moving at c)
> > > > cannot truly be reconciled with the continuous wave idea (I don't
> > > > see how, anyway), I can't comment on this.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if you have been confused by quantum mechanics. There are
> > > a lot of people in this situation. I'm not sure if I can totally go
> > > along with Old Man's statement.
> >
> > I am not confused by QM. QM is not in the picture at all. I was
> > talking about the probable physical geometry of Maxwell EM wave if
> > it could exist at all, not about its mathematical treatment.
> >
> > > The word 'photon' describes the particle-like aspects of light.
> >
> > Yes. It describes what light physically is. A bunch of quantized
> > EM particles individually travelling at c.
>
> As long as you consider that quantum particles behave in ways quite
> different from the particles of classical mechanics.
We were talking about real EM photons, not CM nor nondescript quantum
particles.
> > > However there is nothing in the quantum field theory of light with the
> > > individuality suggested by the word.
> >
> > That's the main reason why I disagree that QFT could really represent
> > physical reality.
>
> Surely we must be guided by experimental results rather than armchair
> philosophizing?
Yes. Simple causality (one of the things that all contemporary physicists
have flushed down the drain as they bowed down to the Copenhagen school
of thought).
There is clear experimental evidence that all electron/positron pairs
do not spontaneously appear out of nowhere, but all are the product of
photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more decoupling into pairs as they are
destabilized when grazing other particles.
This simple fact disqualifies QFT from being more than a mathematical
metaphor of physical processes, however useful it may be.
> > Why should this be important. I dont think that chemical or
> > electromagnetic processes care what I think. They just proceed
> > with or without my consent when circumstances are ripe for them
> > to proceed.
>
> Absolutely. You took the words out of my mouth.
>
> > Physical reality doesn't seem to care at all whether or not we
> > can predict it.
>
> Correct. 99% of humanity does not care at all whether or not we can
> predict the outcomes of experiments. But scientists should care.
Predicting the outcome of experiments does not mean that we have
to be able to predict each and every electron quantum jump in the
universe across time. It only means we need to be able to predict
the states that will result in quantum jumps.
In other words, we only need to understand the processes to be
able to use them to our benefit.
> > > Are you familiar with second quantization notation?
> >
> > Only superficially. I did not need the approach for my analysis.
>
> Does your analysis predict correctly the results of the crucial
> experiments?
How could it be otherwise? Observation and experiments are our
only connection with physical reality.
Since there is only one physical reality (another thing that is
disputed by all non-causalists), the only requirement is to
understand the processes. In my book, "predicting" only means
understanding the processes to be able to use them to our benefit.
> If so, it is certain to have the detailed correspondence to QFT I
> was talking about. However your statement here does not seem
> consistent with your earlier statements that you could not reconcile
> the particle and wave aspects of light, both of which have been well
> confirmed by experiment. Would you care to expand?
I said that quantization is incompatible with the original Maxwell's
theory because Maxwell perceived EM energy as being a continuous
wave phenomenon.
Either something is continuous or it is not. It can't be both at
the same time.
EM energy appears continuous at the macro level, but at the fundamental
level, we have proof that it is discontinuous, so Maxwell's continuous
wave theory can apply at the macro level but not as is at the fundamental
level. It needs to be adapted to really describe the discrete nature
that we have known for a century EM energy to have at the fundamental
level.
De Broglie proposed a neat avenue of research for a clean solution,
but it has been gathering dust on a shelf for the past 80 years.
> > > On the positive side, quantum optics is a good deal easier to master
> > > than quantum electrodynamics, the quantum field theory of electrons
> > > and photons together. If you're serious about learning, I haven't seen
> > > any textbook good enough to take you from the classical concepts to
> > > the quantum ones. I think it's essential to have a teacher. I hope you
> > > can find one.
> >
> > Thank you for your good encouraging words.
> >
> > But I am specifically interested in understanding physical reality,
> > something that I have found to be foreign to the thought processes
> > of most contemporary physicists.
>
> Einstein's Nobel prize acceptance speech talked about the many
> different motivations for scientists. I, too, am uneasy about
> some of the trends of modern science, associated with the fact that
> governments now spend significant sums on science, through which it
> can be used to gain prestige, power and money.
Awareness of this problem is good.
> For someone interested in truth for its own sake, it would be
> preferable to have independent means, but for most of us this is
> just a dream.
It may not be a dream for all of us.
Independence is a man made thing.
"Things occur in this world only
when someone makes them happen."
Author unknown
André Michaud
- Next message: CJS: "Re: How to lose an argument"
- Previous message: nick: "Re: how to solve them?"
- In reply to: zigoteau: "Re: wave and light"
- Next in thread: Harry Conover: "Re: wave and light"
- Reply: Harry Conover: "Re: wave and light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
