- Thank you received: 0
Cosmological Redshift and Expansion of Space
16 years 5 months ago #20925
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
JimMash, Rather than doing the "Is too/Is not" stuff maybe a dvice can be constructed to show how photons work and if or if not they are quantified. How would you design that kind of device?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20022
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JimMash, Rather than doing the "Is too/Is not" stuff maybe a dvice can be constructed to show how photons work and if or if not they are quantified. How would you design that kind of device?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I cannot write anything about a thing which cannot exist.
Classical electrodynamics works perfectly well provided that:
-1 We use the Schwarzshild-Fokker trick to apply Maxwell's equations, which are linear to study all problems. This trick replaces the sources by their advanced field.
-2 We define the modes of the electromagnetic field: a mode is a set of solutions which differ only by a real multiplicative number which we name the amplitude of the field in the mode or "mode amplitude".
It must be noted that, as Maxwell's equations are linear, and work up to X rays, it is impossible to qualify a set of orthogonal modes "normal", as can be done in acoustics whose equations are linear only in a bad approximation.
-3 In a given mode, the mode amplitude defines fully the field. Thus, it is absurd to separate a fraction of the field, the zero point field, from the remainder of the field. The zero point field is a particular case of the stochastic field which, at any temperature, is in equilibrium with matter, that is statiscally nether absorbed nor emitted.
An example of absurdity is: "the electron of Bohr's atom falls on the kernel". Taking into account the stochastic field in the mode emitted by the electron (with Lamb's correction), the electron radiates no energy although it radiates a field.
<br />JimMash, Rather than doing the "Is too/Is not" stuff maybe a dvice can be constructed to show how photons work and if or if not they are quantified. How would you design that kind of device?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I cannot write anything about a thing which cannot exist.
Classical electrodynamics works perfectly well provided that:
-1 We use the Schwarzshild-Fokker trick to apply Maxwell's equations, which are linear to study all problems. This trick replaces the sources by their advanced field.
-2 We define the modes of the electromagnetic field: a mode is a set of solutions which differ only by a real multiplicative number which we name the amplitude of the field in the mode or "mode amplitude".
It must be noted that, as Maxwell's equations are linear, and work up to X rays, it is impossible to qualify a set of orthogonal modes "normal", as can be done in acoustics whose equations are linear only in a bad approximation.
-3 In a given mode, the mode amplitude defines fully the field. Thus, it is absurd to separate a fraction of the field, the zero point field, from the remainder of the field. The zero point field is a particular case of the stochastic field which, at any temperature, is in equilibrium with matter, that is statiscally nether absorbed nor emitted.
An example of absurdity is: "the electron of Bohr's atom falls on the kernel". Taking into account the stochastic field in the mode emitted by the electron (with Lamb's correction), the electron radiates no energy although it radiates a field.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20023
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
JMB, There are any number of systems devised by the human mind that work perfectly well if not pushed too far. But how does that help in determining weather or not the photon is quantified? Why can't the photon be better understood rather than being a mystery?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20756
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JMB, There are any number of systems devised by the human mind that work perfectly well if not pushed too far. But how does that help in determining weather or not the photon is quantified? Why can't the photon be better understood rather than being a mystery?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Science is not a religion: the words it uses must have a meaning.
"photon" is meaningless because Maxwell's equations are LINEAR, so that the "wave-particle duality problem" applies, it is impossible to bind any remarkable point to a wave obeying a linear equation.
In the gamma region, Maxwell's equations fail, so that it is possible to find particles, but these particles are electron and positron.
<br />JMB, There are any number of systems devised by the human mind that work perfectly well if not pushed too far. But how does that help in determining weather or not the photon is quantified? Why can't the photon be better understood rather than being a mystery?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Science is not a religion: the words it uses must have a meaning.
"photon" is meaningless because Maxwell's equations are LINEAR, so that the "wave-particle duality problem" applies, it is impossible to bind any remarkable point to a wave obeying a linear equation.
In the gamma region, Maxwell's equations fail, so that it is possible to find particles, but these particles are electron and positron.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20027
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
JMB, OK if you don't like the word "photon" we can call it by another name. The point is energy is real and does move about so it must come and go in some quantity. If not a photon how about in buckets or bundles? How about a bundle of energy rather than a photon?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 5 months ago #20757
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JMB, OK if you don't like the word "photon" we can call it by another name. The point is energy is real and does move about so it must come and go in some quantity. If not a photon how about in buckets or bundles? How about a bundle of energy rather than a photon?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Only Maxwell equations.
<br />JMB, OK if you don't like the word "photon" we can call it by another name. The point is energy is real and does move about so it must come and go in some quantity. If not a photon how about in buckets or bundles? How about a bundle of energy rather than a photon?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Only Maxwell equations.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.335 seconds