Re: On Planck's constant

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/14/05

  • Next message: LingChow: "A new state of water has be found, DW" 
    Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:05:58 -0600

    Torbjorn Larsson wrote:

    > You can only observe a photon if the EM field varies, a static E field
    > doesn't emit photons.

    How would you know that an E field is present unless you had charges
    in motion wrt its source? Place an electron at rest wrt a small test
    charge: If neither is in motion after this, then by what means can
    they be restrained in static equilibrium that doesn't involve moving
    charges? All macroscopic masses emit photons because it is impossible
    to have a pure electrostatic field. Even neutral stationary masses
    emit photons.

    See "Earnshaw's Theorem" for some insight as to why this is.

    >
    > Photons are observed at interactions in the near (induction) field

    How are they observed?

    > where idealised point sources has no physical realisation.

    Did you mean "Where there are no point charges present?
    If so, then I doubt you'll find photons interacting there, having
    nothing there to interact with.

    Richard Perry

    >
    > "BTW, there are no separately existing E and 'B' fields, there is only
    > one field, the EM field, of which E and B (M) are relativistic
    > perspectives. " Start with a static charge; only E field can be
    > observed. Now stir: a varying E and a B field appears. That's Maxwell's
    > equations. Spice with SR; now one can see that B follows from E, and
    > the EM (A) field appears. Heat thoroughly; the EM fields disappears
    > into the electroweak force.
    >

  • Next message: LingChow: "A new state of water has be found, DW"
    • Quantcast