Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #468982 > unrolled thread

How Big is s PHOTON ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 11:09 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 09:36 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:16 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 10:36 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 09:55 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:20 +0000
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 12:13 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 12:27 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 12:48 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 13:12 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 13:18 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 13:28 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 14:14 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-24 18:55 -0500
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:23 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 15:38 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:12 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-26 21:17 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-25 17:08 +0000
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2018-08-26 11:31 +1000
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 21:12 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 10:59 -0500
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 16:40 +0000
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 09:41 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:17 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 10:41 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 11:30 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-26 23:14 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-27 11:09 +0000
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-27 17:32 -0500
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 22:44 +0000
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 15:50 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:03 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 09:30 -0700
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:52 +0000
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 11:12 -0700
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 19:13 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-28 22:05 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 19:22 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Brandi Hofmann <ohifu@awdwf.nr> - 2018-08-28 11:01 +0000
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 10:32 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 11:15 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 13:12 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 14:07 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 14:45 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 17:20 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 19:04 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 07:55 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:49 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 14:11 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 14:29 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-08-25 14:52 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Eters Beckenbauer <lrrif@dnewrersd.ne> - 2018-08-26 10:19 +0000
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:32 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 13:28 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 22:03 +0100
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 00:03 +0200
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 15:08 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 15:23 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 00:28 +0200
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 16:41 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 17:45 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 21:32 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:25 +0200
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 11:19 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:30 +0200
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 14:18 -0700
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:59 +0200
                      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-30 10:14 -0700
                        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 13:25 -0700
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 15:19 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 04:24 +0100
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 20:34 -0700
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 08:51 +0100
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:51 +0200
      Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 18:50 +0200
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 12:36 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 22:02 +0200
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:38 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 14:18 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:38 -0700
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:04 +0200
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:28 -0700
              Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:46 +0200
                Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 19:30 -0700
                  Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:43 +0200
                    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 20:08 -0700
        Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-30 16:26 -0500
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-30 15:27 -0700
            Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 16:26 -0700
          Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 01:31 +0200
    Re: How Big is s PHOTON ? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:59 -0700

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#469197

On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 6:31:30 PM UTC-7, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:08:58 +0000 (UTC), Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
> 
> >> The question makes no sense, because a photon has no "size".
> >> 
> >> Some people claim that a photon has a "length related to its wavelength"
> >> -- this is wrong because photons have no length (or wavelength or
> >> frequency or energy). The only intrinsic properties a photon possesses
> >> are is its mass (zero) and its spin (1 in units of h-bar, parallel or
> >> anti-parallel to its momentum).
> > 
> > You forgot the most important, as point particle, size zero.
> 
> I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin? 
> 
> What can be said is that assuming that photons do exist, our models can
> predict the results of experiments.

Einstein gave up on his light wave having to have a particle.
He gave up on his Nobel in 1921 to say he could not reconcile the wave
with the particle in 1937.

He got better at science...
Anybody can show how points are absorbed?

Waves can be...


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469281

On 8/25/18 8:31 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin?

Photons are not "objects", they are excitations of a quantum field. That FIELD 
has mass zero and spin 1 (which is dictated by the number of degrees of freedom 
it has, and how they interact).

When speaking, we normally associate mass and spin to individual particles; this 
is a verbal short-cut, and mathematically they are actually properties of the 
underlying quantum field (of which the particles are excitations). This applies 
to all elementary particles, including photons, electrons, quarks, ....

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469293

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/25/18 8:31 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin?
> 
> Photons are not "objects", they are excitations of a quantum field. That FIELD 
> has mass zero and spin 1 (which is dictated by the number of degrees of freedom 
> it has, and how they interact).
> 
> When speaking, we normally associate mass and spin to individual particles; this 
> is a verbal short-cut, and mathematically they are actually properties of the 
> underlying quantum field (of which the particles are excitations). This applies 
> to all elementary particles, including photons, electrons, quarks, ....
> 
> Tom Roberts
> 

I’m reading a short book by Kershon Huang. He has an interesting analogy.
Suppose we lived in a world where all regular polyhedra exposed to our
senses had at least a billion faces. We would call those spheres and we’d
have an intuitive understanding of a diameter. But then suppose through
experiment we discover a polyhedron that only has 20 sides. At first, we
wouldn’t have any idea what “side” even means. And perhaps the first
question we might ask if this new thing is “what’s the diameter?”

I think our minds are typically pretty well locked on the notion of an
object being something that has nonzero volume and mass. However, a quick
inventory of such things reveals that all our examples are of composite
objects. And we simply haven’t asked the question whether these properties
are true or even make sense of noncomposite things. A good starting place
might be to ask, “for the objects I know, where does the volume come from?”
The answer to this is both surprising and elegant. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469294

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:59:21 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/25/18 8:31 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin?
> 
> Photons are not "objects", they are excitations of a quantum field. That FIELD 
> has mass zero and spin 1 (which is dictated by the number of degrees of freedom 
> it has, and how they interact).
> 
> When speaking, we normally associate mass and spin to individual particles; this 
> is a verbal short-cut, and mathematically they are actually properties of the 
> underlying quantum field (of which the particles are excitations). This applies 
> to all elementary particles, including photons, electrons, quarks, ....
> 
> Tom Roberts

This seems like the "Higgs way" which is defining 
the interface (as the surface) as a "field" that 
is not a classical field but rather a region of 
interaction/"excitation" in "phase transitions".

Higgs field:  not a field.

It seems an overloading of the ontology 
(the model of "types" of things).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#PhiIss

"It seems almost impossible to talk about elementary 
particle physics, or QFT more generally, without thinking 
of particles which are accelerated and scattered in 
colliders. Nevertheless, it is this very interpretation 
which is confronted with the most fully developed 
counter-arguments. There still is the option to say 
that our classical concept of a particle is too narrow 
and that we have to loosen some of its constraints. 
After all, even in classical corpuscular theories of 
matter the concept of an (elementary) particle is not 
as unproblematic as one might expect. For instance, if 
the whole charge of a particle was contracted to a point, 
an infinite amount of energy would be stored in this 
particle since the repulsive forces become infinitely 
large when two charges with the same sign are brought 
together. The so-called self energy of a point particle 
is infinite."


"The transition from a classical field theory 
to a quantum field theory is characterized by 
the occurrence of operator-valued quantum fields 
φ̂(x,t), and corresponding conjugate fields, for 
both of which certain canonical commutation relations 
hold. Thus there is an obvious formal analogy between 
classical and quantum fields: in both cases field values 
are attached to space-time points, where these values 
are specified by real numbers in the case of classical 
fields and operators in the case of quantum fields. That 
is, the mapping x ↦ φ̂(x,t) in QFT is analogous to the 
classical mapping x ↦ φ(x,t). Due to this formal analogy 
it appears to be beyond any doubt that QFT is a field theory. "


These aren't classical fields but quantum fields.
The formal analogy between them has limits.


"In recent years, however, ontic structural realism 
(OSR) has become the most fashionable ontological 
framework for modern physics. While so far the vast 
majority of studies concentrates on ordinary QM and 
General Relativity Theory, it seems to be commonly 
believed among advocates of OSR that their case is 
even stronger regarding QFT, in light of the paramount 
significance of symmetry groups (also see below)—
hence the name group structural realism (Roberts 2010). 
Explicit arguments are few and far between, however. "


So, in a way, introducing "quantum fields" and 
calling them fields is like having atoms and 
then working up they're divisible, this being 
parcel of the realm of "continuum mechanics", 
here with about "quantum mechanics" that eventually 
being under limits.


As we were talking about Shech's "Assume a spherical 
cow..." the other day, and a complement to Noether's 
symmetry conservation as that phase transitions 
involve infinite limits (all the higher-order or 
multipole), there's again a perceived requirement 
to frame these things in an ontology about continuum 
mechanics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469304

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 9:41:35 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:59:21 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 8/25/18 8:31 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > > I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin?
> > 
> > Photons are not "objects", they are excitations of a quantum field. That FIELD 
> > has mass zero and spin 1 (which is dictated by the number of degrees of freedom 
> > it has, and how they interact).
> > 
> > When speaking, we normally associate mass and spin to individual particles; this 
> > is a verbal short-cut, and mathematically they are actually properties of the 
> > underlying quantum field (of which the particles are excitations). This applies 
> > to all elementary particles, including photons, electrons, quarks, ....
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> This seems like the "Higgs way" which is defining 
> the interface (as the surface) as a "field" that 
> is not a classical field but rather a region of 
> interaction/"excitation" in "phase transitions".
> 
> Higgs field:  not a field.
> 
> It seems an overloading of the ontology 
> (the model of "types" of things).
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#PhiIss
> 
> "It seems almost impossible to talk about elementary 
> particle physics, or QFT more generally, without thinking 
> of particles which are accelerated and scattered in 
> colliders. Nevertheless, it is this very interpretation 
> which is confronted with the most fully developed 
> counter-arguments. There still is the option to say 
> that our classical concept of a particle is too narrow 
> and that we have to loosen some of its constraints. 
> After all, even in classical corpuscular theories of 
> matter the concept of an (elementary) particle is not 
> as unproblematic as one might expect. For instance, if 
> the whole charge of a particle was contracted to a point, 
> an infinite amount of energy would be stored in this 
> particle since the repulsive forces become infinitely 
> large when two charges with the same sign are brought 
> together. The so-called self energy of a point particle 
> is infinite."
> 
> 
> "The transition from a classical field theory 
> to a quantum field theory is characterized by 
> the occurrence of operator-valued quantum fields 
> φ̂(x,t), and corresponding conjugate fields, for 
> both of which certain canonical commutation relations 
> hold. Thus there is an obvious formal analogy between 
> classical and quantum fields: in both cases field values 
> are attached to space-time points, where these values 
> are specified by real numbers in the case of classical 
> fields and operators in the case of quantum fields. That 
> is, the mapping x ↦ φ̂(x,t) in QFT is analogous to the 
> classical mapping x ↦ φ(x,t). Due to this formal analogy 
> it appears to be beyond any doubt that QFT is a field theory. "
> 
> 
> These aren't classical fields but quantum fields.
> The formal analogy between them has limits.
> 
> 
> "In recent years, however, ontic structural realism 
> (OSR) has become the most fashionable ontological 
> framework for modern physics. While so far the vast 
> majority of studies concentrates on ordinary QM and 
> General Relativity Theory, it seems to be commonly 
> believed among advocates of OSR that their case is 
> even stronger regarding QFT, in light of the paramount 
> significance of symmetry groups (also see below)—
> hence the name group structural realism (Roberts 2010). 
> Explicit arguments are few and far between, however. "
> 
> 
> So, in a way, introducing "quantum fields" and 
> calling them fields is like having atoms and 
> then working up they're divisible, this being 
> parcel of the realm of "continuum mechanics", 
> here with about "quantum mechanics" that eventually 
> being under limits.
> 
> 
> As we were talking about Shech's "Assume a spherical 
> cow..." the other day, and a complement to Noether's 
> symmetry conservation as that phase transitions 
> involve infinite limits (all the higher-order or 
> multipole), there's again a perceived requirement 
> to frame these things in an ontology about continuum 
> mechanics.

Unzicker writes an interesting paper:
"What can Physics learn from Continuum Mechanics ?", 
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064 .


This paper by Millette talks about some 
mechanics of photons:
"Dislocations in the Spacetime Continuum:
Framework for Quantum Physics"
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-43-01.PDF :

"In this framework, photon and particle self-energies 
and interactions are mediated by the strain energy 
density of the dislocations, replacing the role played 
by virtual particles in QED. We postulate that the spacetime
continuum has a granularity characterized by a length b_0
corresponding to the smallest STC elementary  Burgers  
dislocation-displacement  vector."

It's an "aether theory", or, here "elastodynamic spacetime ''continuum''".


Pauli exclusion is rather fundamental and 
sits a bit uneasily in QFT.


These can each be good models for "some" things 
then often usually about computational and explanatory 
convenience (and necessity) and well-defined interpretability 
of the behavior or physical interpretation, about seeking 
unified (and complete) formalisms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469307

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 10:17:53 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 9:41:35 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:59:21 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 8/25/18 8:31 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> > > > I have a problem with an object that has no size or mass but has a spin?
> > > 
> > > Photons are not "objects", they are excitations of a quantum field. That FIELD 
> > > has mass zero and spin 1 (which is dictated by the number of degrees of freedom 
> > > it has, and how they interact).
> > > 
> > > When speaking, we normally associate mass and spin to individual particles; this 
> > > is a verbal short-cut, and mathematically they are actually properties of the 
> > > underlying quantum field (of which the particles are excitations). This applies 
> > > to all elementary particles, including photons, electrons, quarks, ....
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > This seems like the "Higgs way" which is defining 
> > the interface (as the surface) as a "field" that 
> > is not a classical field but rather a region of 
> > interaction/"excitation" in "phase transitions".
> > 
> > Higgs field:  not a field.
> > 
> > It seems an overloading of the ontology 
> > (the model of "types" of things).
> > 
> > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#PhiIss
> > 
> > "It seems almost impossible to talk about elementary 
> > particle physics, or QFT more generally, without thinking 
> > of particles which are accelerated and scattered in 
> > colliders. Nevertheless, it is this very interpretation 
> > which is confronted with the most fully developed 
> > counter-arguments. There still is the option to say 
> > that our classical concept of a particle is too narrow 
> > and that we have to loosen some of its constraints. 
> > After all, even in classical corpuscular theories of 
> > matter the concept of an (elementary) particle is not 
> > as unproblematic as one might expect. For instance, if 
> > the whole charge of a particle was contracted to a point, 
> > an infinite amount of energy would be stored in this 
> > particle since the repulsive forces become infinitely 
> > large when two charges with the same sign are brought 
> > together. The so-called self energy of a point particle 
> > is infinite."
> > 
> > 
> > "The transition from a classical field theory 
> > to a quantum field theory is characterized by 
> > the occurrence of operator-valued quantum fields 
> > φ̂(x,t), and corresponding conjugate fields, for 
> > both of which certain canonical commutation relations 
> > hold. Thus there is an obvious formal analogy between 
> > classical and quantum fields: in both cases field values 
> > are attached to space-time points, where these values 
> > are specified by real numbers in the case of classical 
> > fields and operators in the case of quantum fields. That 
> > is, the mapping x ↦ φ̂(x,t) in QFT is analogous to the 
> > classical mapping x ↦ φ(x,t). Due to this formal analogy 
> > it appears to be beyond any doubt that QFT is a field theory. "
> > 
> > 
> > These aren't classical fields but quantum fields.
> > The formal analogy between them has limits.
> > 
> > 
> > "In recent years, however, ontic structural realism 
> > (OSR) has become the most fashionable ontological 
> > framework for modern physics. While so far the vast 
> > majority of studies concentrates on ordinary QM and 
> > General Relativity Theory, it seems to be commonly 
> > believed among advocates of OSR that their case is 
> > even stronger regarding QFT, in light of the paramount 
> > significance of symmetry groups (also see below)—
> > hence the name group structural realism (Roberts 2010). 
> > Explicit arguments are few and far between, however. "
> > 
> > 
> > So, in a way, introducing "quantum fields" and 
> > calling them fields is like having atoms and 
> > then working up they're divisible, this being 
> > parcel of the realm of "continuum mechanics", 
> > here with about "quantum mechanics" that eventually 
> > being under limits.
> > 
> > 
> > As we were talking about Shech's "Assume a spherical 
> > cow..." the other day, and a complement to Noether's 
> > symmetry conservation as that phase transitions 
> > involve infinite limits (all the higher-order or 
> > multipole), there's again a perceived requirement 
> > to frame these things in an ontology about continuum 
> > mechanics.
> 
> Unzicker writes an interesting paper:
> "What can Physics learn from Continuum Mechanics ?", 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064 .
> 
> 
> This paper by Millette talks about some 
> mechanics of photons:
> "Dislocations in the Spacetime Continuum:
> Framework for Quantum Physics"
> http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-43-01.PDF :
> 
> "In this framework, photon and particle self-energies 
> and interactions are mediated by the strain energy 
> density of the dislocations, replacing the role played 
> by virtual particles in QED. We postulate that the spacetime
> continuum has a granularity characterized by a length b_0
> corresponding to the smallest STC elementary  Burgers  
> dislocation-displacement  vector."
> 
> It's an "aether theory", or, here "elastodynamic spacetime ''continuum''".
> 
> 
> Pauli exclusion is rather fundamental and 
> sits a bit uneasily in QFT.
> 
> 
> These can each be good models for "some" things 
> then often usually about computational and explanatory 
> convenience (and necessity) and well-defined interpretability 
> of the behavior or physical interpretation, about seeking 
> unified (and complete) formalisms.


One might dispute the legitimacy of articles in 
"Progress in Physics" as among journals carrying 
"fringe" opinions that would include otherwise 
unexplained phenomena but not necessarily be 
for example in their models then explaining all 
phenomena.  Confidence in the formalisms would 
have to be established a bit more individually than 
the usual tide of results in agreement and a usual 
reserve in the non-explanation of effects, 
outside the working model.

There's often not so much compelling that in 
terms of time.

Science in progress would eventually topple into 
what would have been "fringe" (or, often, the 
"rediscovered and reconciled"), though.  Modern 
physical theories have a tremendous wealth of 
data to explain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469315

I hate to be the one that breaks this bad news to you but someone has to. QFT and QED and also just about everything in theoretical physics is based on Maxwell's equations which is offset by the gauge representation but the gauge is based on Maxwell's equations that is not luminous that means that Faraday's induction effect that is used to derive Maxwell's equations and used in the gauge is not emitting light and light is also composed of the photons that we a discussing. Plus, just as important an electromagnetic field experimentally expands which to most theoretical physicists is an unknown concept since if it were understood then QED and QFT would not exist. Why would they not exit? because the word "quantum" implies particle and electrodynamics and field implies Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that is based on Faraday's induction effect that is represented with an electromagnetic field. An electromagnetic gets bigger and bigger when it propagates which is experimentally verified using radio waves that are formed by Faraday's induction effect that radio induction effect's effect increases in scope as the distance from the source of the radio wave increases. Similar to a little boy who is five years old in normal growth situation get bigger and bigger as time increase when feed properly. Certainly, if he is not feed properly he may not grow with the same rate as a normal boy but nonetheless the said boy would grow. An electromagnetic field is similar to a little boy that gets bigger as he grows as time increases. Now if an electromagnetic field expands (gets bigger and bigger) than it cannot be used to represent a particle structure. Example, after the little boy grow for 23 years he cannot normally fit into his baby 5 year old clothes and shoes since he has grown or expanded which depicts how an expanding electromagnetic field of QED OR QFT cannot depict the particle structure of an photon represented with the gauge since as similar to the little baby boy at five years old who was suckled by his mother can now eat regular food and buy milk at the store but its probably not as good a mothers milk but even if he began to suckling again he would not fit into his baby cloth; however, we could use a CS transformation of EInstein's relativity and transform his old five year old clothes and shoes using the time-space transformation analogy and take those said clothes to a seamstress and she could make clothes exact like the 5 year old baby clothes which is just another proof the Einstein SR based on the Galilean Transformation that verifies Planck's and the QM quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469242

On 8/25/18 12:08 PM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
> il bella giorno di agosto Tom Roberts ha scritto:
> 
>> The question makes no sense, because a photon has no "size".
>>
>> Some people claim that a photon has a "length related to its wavelength"
>> -- this is wrong because photons have no length (or wavelength or
>> frequency or energy). The only intrinsic properties a photon possesses
>> are is its mass (zero) and its spin (1 in units of h-bar, parallel or
>> anti-parallel to its momentum).
> 
> You forgot the most important, as point particle, size zero.

Nope. As I said, photons have no "size". That is, the concept "size" 
does not really apply.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469248

il bella giorno di agosto Tom Roberts ha scritto:

> On 8/25/18 12:08 PM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
>> il bella giorno di agosto Tom Roberts ha scritto:
>> 
>>> The question makes no sense, because a photon has no "size".
>>>
>>> Some people claim that a photon has a "length related to its
>>> wavelength"
>>> -- this is wrong because photons have no length (or wavelength or
>>> frequency or energy). The only intrinsic properties a photon possesses
>>> are is its mass (zero) and its spin (1 in units of h-bar, parallel or
>>> anti-parallel to its momentum).
>> 
>> You forgot the most important, as point particle, size zero.
> 
> Nope. As I said, photons have no "size". That is, the concept "size"
> does not really apply.

You are doing it again, they DO have size since they exists. Which HAS TO 
equals to ZERO. Plot a stream of photons, a beam, on a piece of graph 
paper, since they DO exists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469369

On 8/27/18 6:09 AM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
> You are doing it again, they DO have size since they exists.

Do your thoughts exist? Do they have any size?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469371

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/27/18 6:09 AM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
>> You are doing it again, they DO have size since they exists.
> 
> Do your thoughts exist? Do they have any size?
> 
> Tom Roberts
> 

How about the magnetic field around the earth? Does it have a size? Does it
exist?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469374

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 3:44:47 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 8/27/18 6:09 AM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
> >> You are doing it again, they DO have size since they exists.
> > 
> > Do your thoughts exist? Do they have any size?
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> > 
> 
> How about the magnetic field around the earth? Does it have a size? Does it
> exist?

Is it round?


Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469463

i don't get it..

certaintly a photon has mass

e=Mc^2 means 

mass has energy
energy has mass

mass
energy

photon
is
a
particle

a 
photon
has
energy


energy has mass

mass has energy

e=Mc^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469505

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> i don't get it..
> 
> certaintly a photon has mass
> 
> e=Mc^2 means 
> 
> mass has energy
> energy has mass
> 
> mass
> energy
> 
> photon
> is
> a
> particle
> 
> a 
> photon
> has
> energy
> 
> 
> energy has mass
> 
> mass has energy
> 
> e=Mc^2

I been patiently wait for someone to use that.




Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469510

<consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> i don't get it..
>> 
>> certaintly a photon has mass
>> 
>> e=Mc^2 means 
>> 
>> mass has energy
>> energy has mass
>> 
>> mass
>> energy
>> 
>> photon
>> is
>> a
>> particle
>> 
>> a 
>> photon
>> has
>> energy
>> 
>> 
>> energy has mass
>> 
>> mass has energy
>> 
>> e=Mc^2
> 
> I been patiently wait for someone to use that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic
> field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but
> Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an
> electromagnetic photon.
> 
> 

Note the correct relation is 
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469532

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:52:52 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> i don't get it..
> >> 
> >> certaintly a photon has mass
> >> 
> >> e=Mc^2 means 
> >> 
> >> mass has energy
> >> energy has mass
> >> 
> >> mass
> >> energy
> >> 
> >> photon
> >> is
> >> a
> >> particle
> >> 
> >> a 
> >> photon
> >> has
> >> energy
> >> 
> >> 
> >> energy has mass
> >> 
> >> mass has energy
> >> 
> >> e=Mc^2
> > 
> > I been patiently wait for someone to use that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic
> > field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but
> > Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an
> > electromagnetic photon.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Note the correct relation is 
> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables



Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469711

numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:52:52 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> e=Mc^2
>>>
>>> […]
>>> Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic
>>> field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but
>>> Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an
>>> electromagnetic photon.
>>
>> Note the correct relation is 
>> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 
> Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass E/c^2 (equ 60) but Einstein's inertial mass is massless since E represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon.

Do you ever READ what you are replying to BEFORE you are replying to it?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469552

The Starmaker wrote:
> i don't get it..

That much is obvious.

> certaintly a photon has mass

Probably not.  The range of the electromagnetic interaction certainly
appears to be infinite.

> e=Mc^2 means 

… that it does not apply to photons.

The photon energy is DEFINITELY

  E = ℎ f,

(see photoelectric effect) and if the energy–momentum relation (and
therefore all of special relativity) is true, then it is ONLY true
if p = ℎ∕λ.

> photon
> is
> a
> particle

Which is a QUANTUM object.

> a 
> photon
> has
> energy

Yes, it has energy E = p c = ℎ∕λ c = ℎ c∕λ = ℎ f.

> energy has mass

Not necessarily:

  E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²    Energy–momentum relation

As long as (3-)momentum p ≠ 0, then E ≠ 0 if m = 0.

This implies that photons must move at the speed of light in vacuum, because
they have to have non-zero momentum in every inertial reference frame.  It
also turns out that this is true for all particles whose mass is zero:

  v = c √(1 − m²c⁴∕E²)    “speed–mass relation” (coined, and maybe found,
                                                 by me)

> mass has energy

The mass m of a body is equivalent to its rest energy E₀ = E(p = 0):

  E₀ = m c²

> e=Mc^2

Wrong letter case and ambiguous notation on top of a common misconception.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469639

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> i don't get it..
> 
> certaintly a photon has mass
> 
> e=Mc^2 means 
> 
> mass has energy
> energy has mass
> 
> mass
> energy
> 
> photon
> is
> a
> particle
> 
> a 
> photon
> has
> energy
> 
> 
> energy has mass
> 
> mass has energy
> 
> e=Mc^2

Energy is infinitely small quantized...
Energy has density.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469472

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/27/18 6:09 AM, Eters Beckenbauer wrote:
>> You are doing it again, they DO have size since they exists.
> 
> Do your thoughts exist? Do they have any size?

A particle maps and represents allocating a set of numbers along a domain. 

No, thoughts cannot exists, according to science. What exists are 
structures exchanging chemical signals, motivated by a state shift or 
another.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web