Re: If a PHoton has no electric charge how does it create the EM field ?


PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > Bjoern, I see you still don't quite understand what you're saying. A
> > > > > > math construct is not real like photons so photons cannot be a
> > > > > > "mathematical representation" of anything fictional.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're confused because you halfway believe in that theory but not
> > > > > > completely. Good, you're learning. The theory is that em fields exist
> > > > > > in the vacuum of space. Just an idea, with no other support for it
> > > > > > than the explanation that em radiation exists and that it appears to
> > > > > > exist independent of matter. Never mind that E=mc^2 infers energy and
> > > > > > mass to be independent. That must be wrong since we see no mass where
> > > > > > we see emr. So, since you cannot overthrow the mass/energy
> > > > > > conservation principle nor E=mc^2, just ignore them and enjoy the magic
> > > > > > of "quantum vacuum fluctuations".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you weren't so stubborn, you could agree with me that photons are
> > > > > > created by energy waves colliding with latent photon particles (Dark
> > > > > > Matter) as they propagate through space. Mine is a much better
> > > > > > explanation than that of the supernatural "em fields".
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, but you see, "latent photon particles" and "energy waves" are just
> > > > > an idea, with no other support for it than the explanation that em
> > > > > radiation exists and it appears to exist independent of matter.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, they are only just ideas, but they are supported by the same math
> > > > constructs as are Bjoren's, as they do not conflict with known effects,
> > > > they just better explain them.
> > >
> > > This you have not shown.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, I have. Else show where they conflict.
>
> Something that does not exist cannot conflict with anything.
>
>
My model exists and my ideas exist, yet they don't conflict with the
observations. The simply explain them in more rational and logical
ways. The question is, why do you argue so vehemently against them if
you don't know them?
>
>
> If you
> have shown how your model generates the same mathematical structure as
> QED, then quote yourself explicitly where you have shown that.
>
>
My model accepts the effects observed and makes better explanations of
them than the conclusions drawn from them that there are unexplained
effects in space we have chosen to call "fields" of which we do not
know their cause. We have observed them well enough to explain the
effects themselves but not their root cause. Until we discover or
accept a root cause, we cannot accept that "fields" are what actually
exist to give the effects we have associated as that.
> > >
> > >
> > > You do a magical and unsupported stitching.
> > >
> > >
> > Nothing magical in what I say, and my "stitching" is well-supported by
> > what is interpreted as "quantum vacuum fluctuations", or, "fields".
> > >
> > >
> > > QED has a structure that says [explanation]==>[mathematical
> > > structure]==>[experimental phenomena]. You have an alternate
> > > explanation for the phenomena and so you build a quick/dirty
> > > [explanation']==>[experimental phenomena], and from this you conclude,
> > > without support, that [explanation']==>[mathematical structure] where
> > > the mathematical structure must be the same as that for QED. Nowhere
> > > have you shown that your explanation implies the same mathematical
> > > structure, you just assume it must because you are accounting for the
> > > same experimental phenomena. No dice, bubba.
> > >
> > >
> > I do not argue with the math; I just understand that math constructs
> > are no better than logical constructs and neither are explanations of
> > what is happening. You OTOH believe that they are, contrary to fact
> > and the knowledge that what is in debate is not the math but the
> > interpretations of it.
>
> The problem is there is no connection between your model and the math
> that you say you do not argue with. The two are disjoint.
>
>
You cannot seem to undertand that my model starts where the math leaves
off, just like the concept of fields starts where the math leaves off.
We have chosen to call the math constructs "fields" so as to
distinguish them from ducks, but that does not mean that our naming the
effect makes it what we chose to call it.

You claim the two are "disjoint" but you don't show why nor where you
see that is so. They are not disjointed, they are in agreement.
>
>
> This is in
> contrast with QED where the concepts are explicitly connected with
> mathematical formalism,
>
>
Since you were wrong in that they are disjointed, you'e also wrong in
this.
>
>
>so that the vague predictions of the *concepts*
> of QED can become the rigorously quantitative predictions of the math
> of QED. Without the explicit connection, the concepts are only
> suggestive and the math is just formalism.
>
>
Word salad.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > note that you presume that photons are things that really exist,
> > > > > because you, too, say they are "created by" the collision of those two
> > > > > other ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I did not say I presumed otherwise. What makes you think I did?
> > >
> > > I didn't think that. I said you presumed something stronger than Bjoern
> > > did.
> > >
> > >
> > No, you only imagine you said that.
>
> Um. Let's take a look at the quoted text above where you cite me
> saying, "And not that you presume that photons are things that really
> exist." I'm not imagining that I said it, I'm reading what I said.
> Moreover you *agree* that you presume something stronger than Bjoern
> did. See below where you say, and I quote, "Well that's wrong; they are
> more than that."
>
>
So you think "more" means "stronger"? That explains your overall
confusion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bjoern characterizes photons as a mathematical representation of a
> > > field.
> > >
> > >
> > Well, that's wrong; they are more than that.
> > >
> > >
> > > You presume that photons are real objects.
> > >
> > >
> > And, I take it, you disagree.
>
> I've made no claims about what I think. I'm characterizing what you
> think and comparing that with what Bjoern said. And I'm asking you for
> backup about what you think.
>
>
I thought I had already answered that as "yes", below.
> > >
> > >
> > > On what basis do you
> > > make that claim? And here I want you to be careful, because what Bjoern
> > > describes is a representation that is characterized by certain
> > > properties (e.g. momentum), the set of which is sufficient to predict
> > > the behavior of light in certain circumstances. If you are claiming a
> > > stronger reality, then justify.
> > >
> > >
> > On the stronger reality that a photon is visible to when it is visible
> > light. I had no idea its existence was up for debate, even after all
> > the experimental data which shows that light is dual-natured. Did you
> > immigrate to another planet, or what?
>
> The stronger reality that light is visible is also true of waves, and
> waves do not have photon characteristics. So is a photon a real object
> or not? And on what do you base that judgement?
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is, your constructs aren't on any more solid ground than the
> > > > > mathematical representations that Bjoern characterized photons as.
> > > > > Indeed, what truly matters is how well such representations are able to
> > > > > qualitatively and quantitatively measurable behavior in experiment. The
> > > > > fact that photons are at best a good conceptual way of encapsulating
> > > > > the mathematical form of that representation of the electromagnetic
> > > > > field, in no way diminishes their predictive value, a value that your
> > > > > alternative conceptual encapsulation does not share.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Why do you say that? My constructs do not conflict with any of the
> > > > above which you consider to be "solid ground". They only present a
> > > > more reasonable
> > >
> > > "Reasonable" according to what figures of merit?
> > >
> > >
> > To those which award more merit to rational thought against magical
> > explanations.
>
> And what is your figure of merit for distinguishing rational thoughts
> from magical explanations?
>
>
Same as yours.
> > >
> > >
> > > > explanation for the measured behavior than does the
> > > > unexplained supernatural
> > >
> > > Dictionary.com (compare with Encarta if you like):
> > > su·per·nat·u·ral : Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
> > > adj.
> > > 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
> > > 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural
> > > forces.
> > > 3. Of or relating to a deity.
> > > 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power;
> > > miraculous.
> > > 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
> > >
> > Yeah, that's what I said, supernatural. You should not be ashamed to
> > show that you got that from Wiki-wiki the editable online dictionary.
> > Definitions don't vary that much between dictionaries.
>
> I told you exactly where I got my definition from.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > What about "quantum vacuum fluctuations" or "fields" do you assert
> > > relate to existence outside the natural world? And how do you know that
> > > they do not exist in the natural world?
> > >
> > >
> > Because any student of physics will tell you those are only names given
> > to certain observed effects the cause of which we are as yet unaware.
> > It is a fact that the effects exist, but our explanations of the
> > phenomenon is not necessarily accurate.
>
> And so you characterize quantum fields and vacuum fluctuations as being
> supernatural because their cause is unknown, but you consider "energy
> waves" and "latent photon particles" to be on considerably more solid
> ground? I'm just trying to figure out how you think your model is
> obviously more sensible.
>
>
Well, good for you, if that were true, but I seriously doubt that.
Light waves are well-accepted phenomena for many years now. If you
still believe they don't exist, you have some catching up to do. I
explained that my "latent photon particles" were Dark Matter particles
which is today considered in existence by observation of the effects on
visible matter. You seem to have gotten hung up on the term,
supernatural which only means relating or attributed to phenomena that
cannot be explained by natural law.

My invisible photon particles are supported by Dark Matter and my
"energy waves" are no more than emr which has been well-accepted for
awhile now. Your magical "fields" have only your unshakable belief
that they are fields because they can be explained by math constructs.
But math has been well-accepted to be only an explanation of the
observed effects and not the cause of anything.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the whole point of
> > > physics is to ascertain what exists in the natural world, according to
> > > comparison with the way nature really behaves. Sometimes our best grip
> > > on what a real object is, is a set of properties that the object has.
> > > Doing so mathematically allows you to make and test unambiguous
> > > predictions and not just postdictions.
> > >
> > >
> > You are allowed to think whatever you like, but that does not
> > necessarily make it so. You are so stuck on math that you refuse to
> > understand its limitations, and that is too bad for you.
>
> See above. Concepts without math are without predictive teeth. Math
> without supporting concepts are tools without purpose. Establishing the
> connection between the two is essential to predictive science.
>
>
So you believe math constructs explain the causes of effects? Or do
you subscribe to the nonsense that the physicist's role is not to find
the why of things but only the how of things?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If a PHoton has no electric charge how does it create the EM field ?
    ... >>> are no better than logical constructs and neither are explanations of ... >> The problem is there is no connection between your model and the math ... Firm, quantitative predictions (not ... >> waves do not have photon characteristics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRians, How Can You Claim SR is not LET in Disguise?
    ... I'll admit I don't know the e and B variations of a visible photon offhand. ... What bloody yellow planets, Ghost? ... that SR requires an absolute aether to achieve what it claims. ... lacking, but the math works. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRians, How Can You Claim SR is not LET in Disguise?
    ... I'll admit I don't know the e and B variations of a visible photon offhand. ... What bloody yellow planets, Ghost? ... that SR requires an absolute aether to achieve what it claims. ... lacking, but the math works. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If a PHoton has no electric charge how does it create the EM field ?
    ... >>> Yes, they are only just ideas, but they are supported by the same math ... > are no better than logical constructs and neither are explanations of ... Moreover you *agree* that you presume something stronger than Bjoern ... waves do not have photon characteristics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
    ... we always staert laughing when you post something .. ... saying that the velocity of light is c because water ... exists in SR are two math statements: ... Thus, in SR, there are no physical explanations given ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)