Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?


Y.Porat wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > easy by judging 'limited concepts' ........
> > >
> > > your sound metaphor is misleading
> > > because it is nothing like the electric or magnetic forces!!
> > >
> > > we are know that sound is carried by air!!!
> > > air is all around us
> >
> > Yes, but the point is that the disturbance, the wave itself, the
> > signal, travels over an extended region of space, arriving at multiple
> > points *simultaneously*, which is why two people can hear the *same*
> ----------
> thats the point in which you obfuscate the problem!!
>
> waht is your signal and how and who is doing that signal
> we cannot be abstarct about it
> if you waht to get closer to the thing.
> if it is photons as alaleged
> they spread outwards from a small reagion
> in straight lines

You claim that. I claim that cannot be the case. The reason I know this
is that the wave behavior *persists* even if I know the signal is
carried by one and only one photon. Therefore, this can NOT be
attributable to a multitude of photons spreading outwards in all
directions.

> th ephotn is not a wave of water inthe sea
> it is completely different!!
> -------------
>
>
>
>
> > signal, not two copies of one signal.
> >
> > >
> > > electric and magnetic attraction forces are *alleged to be carried by
> > > ??........
> > > by photons!!
> >
> > Be careful! Light is not alleged to be interpretable as localized
> > particles in all circumstances. In *some* circumstances, it gives
> > behavior that is interpretable as a localized particle; in *some*
> > circumstances, it gives behavior that is only interpretable as a
> > *nonlocalized* wave, just like sound.
>
> so here is the point in which the cheating starts!!
>
> once you say nonlocalised it is exactly as saying:
> listen carefull and think about it because no one said it before:
>
> it is exactly as saing
> we have no idea about how it is done!!!
> we have only a mathematical solusion!

That is *partially* so. What we know is that neither a particle nor a
wave description suffices. So it is something else, which we have
difficulty describing, except mathematically. However, to say as a
result that we must be mistaken, they must be particles and particles
alone is simply denying part of the description and part of the
experimental observations.

> -------------
> -----------------
> >
> > This is not to say that light is sometimes created as a particle and
> > sometimes created as a wave. Nor does it mean that light starts out as
> > a wave and then turns into a particle, or vice versa.
> ---------
> that is another point in which we say:
> we have no idea how it is done physically
> it is just mathematics!!

Yes, that is true. But that does not mean that we simply augment a
particle description with another particle that performs magic to make
it appear like a wave, especially if in so doing we require behavior
that violates momentum conservation!

> ----------
> >
> > What it says is that light is something that is *neither* a particle OR
> > a wave, and yet exhibits properties of both. Assuming that,
> > fundamentally, it *must* be one or the other, gets you in trouble very
> > quickly.
> >
> > >
> > > photons are known to move only in straight lines
> >
> > No, this is not true at all. That's part of the enigma of light's
> > behavior. Even single photons are demonstrated to NOT travel in
> > straight lines sometimes. If ejected from a subatomic particle
> > collision, it is exceedingly likely that you will find evidence of the
> > photon in a straight line from where you deduce it must have been
> > ejected, as required by momentum conservation. On the other hand, if
> > you shine a small light source, one photon at a time, at two slits,
> > there is a significant likelihood that the photon will land in a place
> > that is not in a straight line path from the light source through
> > either slit.
>
> and the double atit is another example to be known as unknown
> physically - only mathe matically!!thats exactly were
> 'the dead dog is lying!!

Look, if I see a bison for the first time, and I don't have a word for
a bison, and I call it a cow (sort of) or a camel(sort of) but it's not
really either one, though it has features of both, that doesn't mean
that I have the right to insist that it is a cow after all, and that
there must be some other thing that is making it *look* a bit like a
camel.
I just have to recognize that it is not something that I have a good
description for.

> ----------
> --------
> >
> > > unless... something is
> > > deviating them
> > > right??
> >
> > No, we can rule that out. The reason is that if something deviated
> > them, then it would be changing the momentum of the photon (momentum
> > must be conserved in any interaction with the deviator), and the
> > momentum of the photon is coupled to its wavelength. Thus any
> > deflection would be seen as a wavelength shift. When it *does* happen
> > (Compton scattering), this is exactly what we see. However, in the
> > double-slit experiment above, we see *no* wavelength shift as would be
> > required if there were a deflecting agent.
> >
> > > so what is deviating them ? photons that are moving only in straight
> > > lines??
> > > so the latter once are pushed outward and they push the other photons
> > > inside
> > >
> > > and once some photons are pushed outside .. that is keeping them from
> > > being lost forever for the specific field??
> > > that is exactly what i meant while i said that you are caught in a
> > > vicious
> > > circle of unanswered questions.
> > >
> > > so Mr PD think a little before accusing an old goat of not thinking
> > > deep enough
> > >
> > > because it is you who is not thinking deep enough
> > > and it will take you a very long time to appreciate and understand
> > > how deep is the idea of the Circlon
> > > ATB
> > > Y.Porat
> > > --------------------------
>
> sorry for not spaell checking
> i have now some familly meeating
> so actually i responded in a hurry.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: nature of electrical influence
    ... >> How does emitting photons create an attraction? ... my model excludes photons as having localized particle ... photons are purely wave phenomenon. ... >> electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: nature of electrical influence
    ... >>> How does emitting photons create an attraction? ... my model excludes photons as having localized particle ... photons are purely wave phenomenon. ... >>> electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: QFT question
    ... >> They're the field represented in a basis of momentum eigenstates. ... But quantum field theory is ... It doesn't replace the field with virtual photons, ... >> that the field might give to a particle passing through. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is this what a "wave" is?
    ... >> The water wave analogy still applies as well. ... i.e. to the motion of the B field past the particle. ... It appears clear to me that photons can and do ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... >>>Yet particle experiments in powerful colliders reveal that photons behave as though ... >> theory of quantum mechanics, we can explain the behaviour of light ... >> tend to describe light as a wave. ... Light is described in terms of particles called photons." ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)