Re: nature of electrical influence


franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > How does emitting photons create an attraction?
> > >
> > > Initially, I said that photons could not create an attraction, but
> > > actually this does occur in my own model of space. According to my
> > > model, protons and electrons emit an extremely high frequency
> > > electromagnetic radiation - which could be thought of as high frequency
> > > photons. I would imagine the frequency is in the range of 10^30 cps -
> > > well beyond gamma ray radiation.
> >
> > You can well imagine anything we do not presently see. Is there a basis
> > for this imagination?
>
> I only made a very rough calculation based on my guess at the size of
> the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible
> frequency based on those dimensions.

And why is the *maximum* possible frequency the one that would be most
commonly populated?


> The highest observable EM wave is
> around 10^20, so I am predicting a frequency nearly a million times
> faster than that. EM radiation has radically different properties
> depending on the frequency and I am thinking the ultra-high frequency
> makes it nearly impossible to detect.

And why is that a good thing to propose?

>
> >
> > >
> > > However, my model excludes photons as having localized particle
> > > features, photons are purely wave phenomenon. Photons get a fixed
> > > quantity of energy associated with them due to their fixed amplitude
> > > and wave train size. This quantization of energy has been mistaken for
> > > photons having a particle like nature. I would say they have a
> > > wave-packet nature, not a particle nature in any sense.
> >
> > Perhaps you should distinguish for us the difference between a wave
> > packet and a particle. What properties does one have that the other
> > does not?
>
> A particle has a localized behavior, it cannot be in both locations A
> and B at the same time. It can only affect 1 location of space at one
> instant. A wave packet expands in a spherical shell from the point of
> origin and it's effect can be at multiple locations on this shell.

Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree, but at least I see.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Assuming that photons are merely EM waves being emitted by protons and
> > > electrons, if the waves have the same frequency, but are out of phase
> > > in an elastic medium, then they will attract according to the 'Bjerknes
> > > forces' (see reference in previous post) according to the 1/r^2 law.
> > > Two protons would emit the same frequency and phase and would repel
> > > each other.
> >
> > And you are aware that simple displacement in space can change
> > something from being in phase to being out of phase, do you not? This
> > is how an antireflective coating on your eyeglasses works.
> >
>
> Sure, that can change the phase of a wave hitting a wall. But if you
> consider 2 in phase wave sources, their crests will meet exactly in the
> centerpoint between the 2 wave sources and since they are equadistant
> to that point, the waves will always meet in phase - no matter what
> distance they are apart.

But look at the nearby minimum. This point has a difference in
*distance* between the two sources, resulting in destructive
interference even if the waves emitted at the sources are in phase.

>
> > >
> > > So this is a reasonable explanation of how "photons" could create an
> > > attracting and repelling force.
> >
> > Yeah, except the *other* things that this reasonable explanation also
> > predicts quickly rules it out.
>
> I would like to hear about any *other* things that quickly rule this
> out. One of the main problem with looking at problems like this is that
> there appear to be such trivial things which are in conflict. But if
> you examine them closely, you find they are not in conflict at all.

The fact that two out-of-phase sources also produce *constructive*
interference. You fail to realize that an interference pattern is a
pattern of *both* constructive and destructive interference, and this
pattern contains both regardless whether the sources are in phase or
out of phase.

>
> >
> > > It is all due to the interaction of the
> > > wave phases coming from protons and electrons. There is no "particle
> > > exchange" between a proton and an electron.
> >
> > You simply changed it from "particle exchange" to "wave exchange". You
> > have not recognized that *photon* exchange is *both* particle exchange
> > and wave exchange.
>
> You're right I don't recognize this. I only recognize the photon as
> strictly wave phenomenon. I think it makes for a much more sensible
> picture than saying it is both a wave and a particle. What I find hard
> to believe is that such a thing is logically impossible. It is like
> saying 1 = 2. It never makes sense, and must be wrong.

It is no more "logically impossible" than saying a quarter is a
president with wings and talons or a bird that once held political
office. What we have here is a failure of our own concepts to
encapsulate reality, not a logical inconsistency.

>
> >
> > >
> > > I think this is more intuitively satisfying than the answer given by
> > > other posters which is basically that we cannot know how photons really
> > > work, we can only describe their effects mathematically. I say that's a
> > > load of crap. We need to understand the underlying model to validate
> > > mathematics and experiment.
> >
> > The problem is that a purely wave exchange model doesn't work. It does
> > not explain electron-positron pair creation, it doesn't explain the
> > photoelectric effect, nor a host of other phenomena that can only be
> > described by a something that also has particle characteristics.
> >
>
> There is one of two possiblities, either a photon is both light and
> wave and 1=2 or the experiments that lead us to think that a photon is
> a particle have been misinterpreted.

Yes, in which case, a theory that is all wave and does account for the
particle-like behavior is more than welcome. However, note that you are
certainly not the first nor the brightest to attempt this. You have
*much* work to do with few tools.

> Previous disccusions of the
> photo-effect have lead me to believe that this can be easily

"Easily" is the part I think you will find surprising.

> explained
> in terms of fixed quanta wave packets. These are pure wave phenomenon
> that spread out as waves and do not involve the long distance
> displacement of any kind of particle.

Then you misunderstand what the issue is with the photoelectric effect.

>
> Electron-positron pair creation has little to do with the nature of
> light. My model indicates that if you hit an aether particle with
> enough EM energy, it will break the proton/electron bond of the aether
> particle

I've already explained to you how we know that the ether is not
proton-electrons. Moreover, you have not distinguished the difference
between light and "EM energy"; if they are the same, then
electron-positron creation has *everything* to do with light, as you
say yourself. Then you have to account not only for the fact that it
happens, but the peculiar behavior that is measured in the *way* that
the electron-positron pair appears (their momenta, their opening angle,
etc).

> and the electron will be ejected. The hole left behind in the
> aether is the positron. The fact that matter can be created out of the
> vacuum suggests that it is not really empty at all.
>
> The only other effect in support of the particle view is the compton
> effect which I am studying to determine if this can also be explained
> as wave phenomenon. My basic thoughts are that the EM wave move
> electrons in their path and give them momentum. When they have enough
> momentum to start ejecting electrons, the EM wave cannot continue on as
> before and thus changes in frequency tying to conserve overall energy.

Show this quantitatively. The current theory does so, and says that the
observed energy distribution *must* have the form that it does.

> Overall the compton effect is not a very direct piece of evidence since
> it is just matching a predicted formula. Any number of phenomenon could
> wind up with the same result,

I think you underestimate how hard it is for a theory to quantitatively
predict behavior. As as example, you *suppose* above that electrons
emit radiation at the maximum allowed frequencies. A good theory would
say *why* the frequencies would be dominated by the high end and it
could *only* be that way. This is your charge too.


> so while compton may support particle
> phenomenon, it does not rule out wave phenomenon. Other than these
> effects, the overwhelming evidence is that photons are strictly a wave
> phenomenon. Although it seems that whenever people discuss photons,
> they overwhelmingly view it as a particle so they think that a photon
> from a candle only hits one pixel of a CCD sensor in a camera. This is
> a totally mistaken view.
>
> > PD

.

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: The densities of a subatomic particle
    ... That's quite old physics, still cluttered with old points of view. ... Only the bare electrons figuring in the QED Lagrangian are pointlike. ... see the entry ''How real is the wave function?'' in the ... particle, it depends on its state only. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: QM will not Answer a Simple Question
    ... The beam comming out of the polarizer is a fully polarized beam of ligth. ... However the classical particle picture of light cannot explain this ... It is obvious how to explain it if Em is truthfully a wave, and that's what I think EM ... I think even in a photoelectric metal, the surface electrons are still bound in quantized energy states and can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: nature of electrical influence
    ... >>> the aether particle, plancks constant and the maximum possible ... >>> The highest observable EM wave is ... > that the phenomenon of attraction/replusion from phased sources has ... >>> electrons in their path and give them momentum. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast