Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?

In article <ddl255$bfl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

> In article <mjones-3E63CC.01391913082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >In article <ddd7a5$r5a$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The *field* causes an attractive force.
> >
> >***{"The field" is just a label asserting that the particle behaves the
> >way the equation says it behaves. It causes nothing, hence explains
> >nothing, because it adds nothing. You might as well tell us that the
> >equation causes the behavior of the particle, as to tell us that "the
> >field" causes it. --MJ}***
> ...
> >
> >***{No, it isn't "as if" a particle carried the force across the
> >intervening space. The reality is that we know for a fact, in all cases
> >whatsoever in which a force is delivered to a target, that an entity was
> >the carrier of the force. We know that because the alternative to the
>
> You have it backwards. The particle is an interpretation of the field.

***{No, I don't have it backwards. When I speak of fields, I recognize
that continuum mathematics is an approximation that breaks down when the
scale is small enough, and that the actual force carriers are discrete,
not continuous. That means, for example, that a charged particle moving
through a magnetic field experiences a series of discrete bumps as it is
deflected from individual flux lines, and that it does not change its
direction in a smooth curve. Thus I did not disagree when you said:

"...in some time interval you may or may not get some momentum
p=h/lambda transferred."

And I did not disagree when you said:

"...the momentum transfer is sudden and finite."

My point of disagreement came when you said:

"It is *as if* a little billiard ball knocked into a particle..."

Your use of "as if" in the above suggests that explaining "sudden and
finite" momentum transfers by postulating impacts with unseen particles
("little billiard balls") is a mere metaphor, rather than an accurate
description of the essence of what is going on. Indeed, in your very
next sentence you stated quite explicitly your belief that the
particulate description is merely "a metaphor for something that the
field did."

Therefore I must repeat myself: no, it isn't "as if" a particle carried
the force across the intervening space. The reality is that we know for
a fact, in all cases whatsoever in which a force is delivered to a
target, that an entity was the carrier of the force. We know that
because the alternative to the notion that forces are carried by
entities is the notion that they leap into existence out of nothing, or
that they are carried by "force fields," which is just an empty label
saying the same thing. The key insight is that either something--some
thing, meaning an entity/particle--is there to deliver the force to its
recipient, or nothing--no thing, meaning no entity/particle--is there.
If you insist that no thing is there and yet the force gets exerted
anyway, you are proclaiming a belief in magic, plain and simple. And
saying a "field" is there, meaning a ghostly presence that it isn't an
entity and isn't composed of entities, is just a convoluted way of
saying, again, that the force came from nothing.

If you disagree with the above, please insert your reasons at the
appropriate locations.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field just as the
> electron is an excitation of the Dirac field. And the particle
> interpretation isn't universally valid

***{I have already responded to your claim that forces need not be
carried by entities and that the postulation of such entities is mere
metaphor. You snipped out the response, and, above, merely repeated the
assertion in a slightly different form. But that is not dialogue. If you
intend to engage in dialogue, you should respond to my response, rather
than merely repeating that to which I responded in the first place. To
assist you in that endeavor, here, between the lines of asterisks, is my
response again.

***************************
All forces are carried by entities. Period. It has to be that way,
because any other concept destroys the very foundations on which
science, and, indeed, all knowledge, rests.

Why so? Simple: if forces do not need to be carried by entities, then we
cannot infer the presence of entities when forces are exerted. If a
photon exerts a force on the retina, we cannot infer the existence of
the photon. The photon need not have existed at all. Thus if we think we
are doing an experiment, based on seeing it before us, we have no basis
for such a conclusion: the forces that were exerted on the retina do not
imply that entities (photons), impinged on the retina, or that, before
reaching the retina, the photons bounced off of experimental apparatus,
because in neither case were entities required to exert force. Therefore
if forces need not be carried by entities, then we lose all basis for
the inference from sensation to source--which means: we have no basis
for believing in the existence of any entity, a conclusion which
specifically includes our own physical bodies, those of other people,
and, indeed, everything else in the material universe.

Bottom line: if forces need not be carried by entities, then we have no
basis for belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves.
***************************

If you have any substantive disagreements with the above, please insert
them at the appropriate locations.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> ; it breaks down in extreme
> spacetimes. It is the field, not the particle, that is fundamental

***{"Reality" is an ideal that can never be completely grasped by the
human mind. That means "the field" as defined by "field equations," is a
mere approximation of the underlying reality--an approximation that
breaks down when the scale becomes small enough. The reason it breaks
down is that the underlying reality is discrete, and the behaviors which
we attribute to "the field" arise out of interactions with lesser
entities--entities which, for the most part, we have not yet identified,
and which operate according to principles that we have not yet grasped.

The alternative to the above conception of fields, as I have already
pointed out in some detail, would be that they work by means of
magic--i.e.,that when a particle at a specific location within the field
changes its state of motion, it is not responding to a collision with
anything, because nothing else is there. In effect, the force leaps into
existence out of nothing.

As I explained, the notion of forces leaping into existence out of
nothing rips the foundation from beneath the structure of human
knowledge, leaving us with no rational basis for belief in the existence
of anything, including ourselves. If you disagree, I await your reasons
(but I am not holding my breath :-).

--Mitchell Jones}***

> --
> quantum field theory is a theory of fields, and the notion of a particle
> is never actually required.

***{It is required for the reasons that I stated in prior posts and have
repeated above. If you have any response to those arguments, I'm all
ears. --MJ}***

> >nothing--no thing, meaning no entity/particle--is there. If you insist
> >that no thing is there and yet the force gets exerted anyway, you are
> >proclaiming a belief in magic, plain and simple. And saying a "field" is
> >there, meaning a ghostly presence that it isn't an entity and isn't
> >composed of entities, is just a convoluted way of saying, again, that
> >the force came from nothing. --MJ}***
>
> "Quantum mechanics is the dreams that stuff is made of."

***{I repeat: the notion that forces need not be carried by entities
collapses the entire structure of knowledge--i.e., the structure of
reason-based belief--as explained above. If you allege that "quantum
mechanics," or any other interpretive framework, requires such a notion,
then you are alleging that the framework in question has no basis in
reason, and, thus, is not science. --MJ}***

> >> The
> >> virtual particle is a metaphor for something that the field did. And even
> >> static fields are a sum of wavelengths, so it applies to them, too.
> >
> >***{All forces are carried by entities. Period. It has to be that way,
> >because any other concept destroys the very foundations on which
> >science, and, indeed, all knowledge, rests.
> >
> >Why so? Simple: if forces do not need to be carried by entities, then we
> >cannot infer the presence of entities when forces are exerted. If a
> >photon exerts a force on the retina, we cannot infer the existence of
> >the photon. The photon need not have existed at all. Thus if we think we
> ...
> >Bottom line: if forces need not be carried by entities, then we have no
> >basis for belief in the existence of anything, including ourselves.
>
> There is no point of confusion if one hasn't first defined the field as
> non-existent

***{It is you, not I, who has "defined the field as non-existent." You
did that when you denied, by treating as mere metaphor, the notion that
the forces exerted within the field are carried by particles. By such
comments you have reduced "the field" to a ghostly presence without
internal structure--which means: a mere label attached to the
mathematical description, a label that adds nothing and explains
nothing. --MJ}***

> -- the electromagnetic field exerted a force on the retina.

***{If a man wading into the surf was knocked over by a wave, would you
say "The ocean knocked him down"? Of course not. You would say the wave
knocked him down. --MJ}***

> The field is an entity, and we call that transfer of momentum a photon.

***{Would you say, when the man is knocked down by the surf, that "we
call that transfer of momentum a wave"? Again, of course not. The wave
is the entity that carried the momentum, which was transferred to the
man by exertion of a force. And, by the same token, the photon is the
entity that carried the momentum which was transferred to the retina by
exertion of a force. The wave is not the same as the momentum it
transferred; and the photon is not the same as the momentum it
transferred either. It is reasonable to say that entities carry momentum
and transfer it by the exertion of force; but it is *not* reasonable to
say that entities *are* momentum, or that they *are* force. Force and
momentum are attributes, not entities. --MJ}***

> It's worth pointing out that particles in quantum mechanics don't act like
> little localized billiard balls flying around, anyway.

***{The term "billiard ball causality" is not intended to convey the
idea that all particles have the properties of billiard balls, but
rather to convey that complex phenomena may be lucidly explained by
identifying the particles which are interacting and the principles by
which they operate, just as the behavior of billiard balls is well known
to have been lucidly explained in precisely that manner. --MJ}***

> You might think of
> photons as little billiard balls

***{I don't, though in many circumstances (e.g., the Compton effect)
they behave similarly. Structurally, however, they are quite different
from billiard balls. --MJ}***

> , but that would be a redefinition of the
> term. The photon is to the electromagnetic field what the phonon is to a
> crystal.

***{When forces are exerted within "the field," are they always and
necessarily exerted by entities, or not? (Your grade will depend on your
answer. :-) --MJ}***
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... The particle is an interpretation of the field. ... A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field just as the ... >basis for belief in the existence of anything, ... non-existent-- the electromagnetic field exerted a force on the retina. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... >>emits a photon in the direction away from the positron, ... >>it momentum toward the positron. ... >>towards the other particle, this will be a net repulsion. ... the carrier of the force. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
    ... existence of these gods makes so much sense and that quantum ... >> the photon crossing the superposed absorber undergoes a random phase ... As for entanglement, ... >say that a particle is entangled we are saying that some measurement ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... So it is likely that just having a gamma photon ... No particle there has any other ... > energy (which is what virtual-particle interactions ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Radiation langauge
    ... The issue - not that I specifically wish to contend the issue in physics, ... records the photon arriving before the other photon which was emitted ... > would exhibit the frequency (particle / wave) nature of the laser light. ... if we could not displace an electron ...
    (alt.usage.english)