Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?

In article <1124201592.846978.173470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > 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.
>
> A little entity, as you call it, would have a hard time interfering
> with itself through the two slits of a Young's experiment.

***{While I sympathize with your interest in that particular conundrum,
I must point out that even it it were totally unexplained at the present
level of knowledge, that would not mean we should embrace the notion of
forces springing into existence out of nothing. When you don't have an
answer to a problem, the proper response is to admit to yourself that
you don't have the answer, and simply keep looking. To embrace magical
thinking because you can't bear to admit you do not know an answer is to
set a course toward intellectual disaster. Like any vice, with
repetition it gets easier, and as your mind fills up with the sorts of
garbage opinions to which magical thinking leads, your reasoning
abilities will progressively decline. Frankly, that is not a path that I
would wish on my worst enemy.

Regarding the supposed single photon version of Young's double slit
experiment, I would agree that self-interference by one particle moving
through a true vacuum--i.e., where no etherial medium is present--would
be hard to imagine. However, if we suppose that the particle is moving
through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium
might be set into vibration, resulting in waves that travel ahead of the
photon, through the slits, and establish a pattern of standing waves on
the other side. Result: when the photon pops through one of the slits,
its motion on the other side would be influenced by the pattern of
standing waves which were present there, leading to the observed
results. The devil, of course, is always in the details; and in this
case crucial details are matters of speculation, not fact. Hence I am
comfortable with the view that this is a matter that will be fully
explained later, when more is known about the structure and properties
of the medium, of photons, and of barriers with slits cut in them to
permit the passage of photons.

Bottom line: this is just a problem which cannot be completely solved
with the information presently available, like millions of others, and
that state of affairs in no way supports the view that reason ought to
be abandoned in favor of magical thinking.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> [snip]
>
> PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
    ... > showing the posibility that it is not a point particle ... pass through two slits is a nonsequitur, ... The photon contains ... >> since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
    ... > showing the posibility that it is not a point particle ... pass through two slits is a nonsequitur, ... The photon contains ... >> since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: Quantum Paradox of a Self-Interference of a Photon in VLBI
    ... > showing the posibility that it is not a point particle ... pass through two slits is a nonsequitur, ... The photon contains ... >> since its energy is entirely a function of how much energy it has wrt a ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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)