| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2005 02:47:19 PM |
| Object: |
attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
For example, let's take an electron and a positron. If the electron
emits a photon in the direction away from the positron, this will give
it momentum toward the positron. However, this is not an exchange of
particles but a net emission of them. If the emitted particles go
towards the other particle (an exchange), this will be a net repulsion.
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy. Others have answered that the
analogy of force-carrying particles is a mathematical one and the
Feynman diagram reasoning involved in my question is simply misplaced.
Is there a better answer?
Thanks!
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 01:16:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
[...]
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy.
I am sure there have always been people who thought "the earth is
round" sounded 'completely crazy'. As it turns out, the universe
doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the things people find intiutive
or crazy. Good thing that.
When you think of "currents" in a macroscopic way as a "flow of
masses", the you will find it "crazy" to hear that electrons moving in
one direction constitute a current in the *opposite* direction. It will
be entirely beyond your conceptual grasp. Once you understand that
"current" isn't used as "flowing masses" but as "flowing charges" in
electromechanics and you realize that charges can be negative, then it
suddenly becomes perfectly intuitive that a negative charge going one
way is the same current as a positive one going the other way.
The problem that you describe above hinges on QFT in the end -- which
you don't know or understand so you take all things macroscopically as
"little billiards balls" and it will 'sound crazy' to you that a
particle can carry negative momentum. You'd have to be rather strange
if it didn't. Just as you'd have to be rather strange not to wonder
about the direction of currents or, heck, the shape of the earth.
Others have gone the same way -- encountered the same questions, had
the same reaction. If the earth was round, why don't the people in
Australia fall off? The more involved the concept you're puzzled about,
the more effort it it going to take to study up on it and convince
yourself that it does all make sense.
It's up to you, in the end. You are free to study quantum field theory.
Like many before you. When you're finished, the exchange of virtual
particles will be straightforward. But something else will "sound
crazy" to you. Then you'll research that until you understand it.
At some point you may decide to take someone's word for it. You may
decide that it is perfectly possible that all particles can be
described in terms of fields and all fields can be described in terms
of particles. Who sometimes happen to carry negative momentum.
I think QFT is a little on the hard side and you might need a better
motivation to dig into it than wanting to understand something that
"sounds crazy" from the POV of the person who doesn't know the field.
Then again, you may master it. And then something else. And something
else.
And after figuring out all the things those other people have all
already figured out, they will start sharing with you the things that
they find "crazy" and that they haven't figured out yet.
At that point you'd be a physicist.
Up to you, as I said.
cordially
Y.T.
--
Remove YourClothes before you email me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Oath" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 04:19:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
[...]
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy.
I am sure there have always been people who thought "the earth is
round" sounded 'completely crazy'. As it turns out, the universe
doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the things people find intiutive
or crazy. Good thing that.
When you think of "currents" in a macroscopic way as a "flow of
masses", the you will find it "crazy" to hear that electrons moving in
one direction constitute a current in the *opposite* direction. It will
be entirely beyond your conceptual grasp. Once you understand that
"current" isn't used as "flowing masses" but as "flowing charges" in
electromechanics and you realize that charges can be negative, then it
suddenly becomes perfectly intuitive that a negative charge going one
way is the same current as a positive one going the other way.
The problem that you describe above hinges on QFT in the end -- which
you don't know or understand so you take all things macroscopically as
"little billiards balls" and it will 'sound crazy' to you that a
particle can carry negative momentum. You'd have to be rather strange
if it didn't. Just as you'd have to be rather strange not to wonder
about the direction of currents or, heck, the shape of the earth.
Others have gone the same way -- encountered the same questions, had
the same reaction. If the earth was round, why don't the people in
Australia fall off? The more involved the concept you're puzzled about,
the more effort it it going to take to study up on it and convince
yourself that it does all make sense.
It's up to you, in the end. You are free to study quantum field theory.
Like many before you. When you're finished, the exchange of virtual
particles will be straightforward. But something else will "sound
crazy" to you. Then you'll research that until you understand it.
At some point you may decide to take someone's word for it. You may
decide that it is perfectly possible that all particles can be
described in terms of fields and all fields can be described in terms
of particles. Who sometimes happen to carry negative momentum.
I think QFT is a little on the hard side and you might need a better
motivation to dig into it than wanting to understand something that
"sounds crazy" from the POV of the person who doesn't know the field.
Then again, you may master it. And then something else. And something
else.
And after figuring out all the things those other people have all
already figured out, they will start sharing with you the things that
they find "crazy" and that they haven't figured out yet.
At that point you'd be a physicist.
Up to you, as I said.
cordially
Y.T.
Sorry, but that's chicken-***** physics, to use someone else's phrase.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 10:57:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
[...]
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy.
I am sure there have always been people who thought "the earth is
round" sounded 'completely crazy'. As it turns out, the universe
doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the things people find intiutive
or crazy. Good thing that.
When you think of "currents" in a macroscopic way as a "flow of
masses", the you will find it "crazy" to hear that electrons moving in
one direction constitute a current in the *opposite* direction. It will
be entirely beyond your conceptual grasp. Once you understand that
"current" isn't used as "flowing masses" but as "flowing charges" in
electromechanics and you realize that charges can be negative, then it
suddenly becomes perfectly intuitive that a negative charge going one
way is the same current as a positive one going the other way.
The problem that you describe above hinges on QFT in the end -- which
you don't know or understand so you take all things macroscopically as
"little billiards balls" and it will 'sound crazy' to you that a
particle can carry negative momentum. You'd have to be rather strange
if it didn't. Just as you'd have to be rather strange not to wonder
about the direction of currents or, heck, the shape of the earth.
Others have gone the same way -- encountered the same questions, had
the same reaction. If the earth was round, why don't the people in
Australia fall off? The more involved the concept you're puzzled about,
the more effort it it going to take to study up on it and convince
yourself that it does all make sense.
It's up to you, in the end. You are free to study quantum field theory.
Like many before you. When you're finished, the exchange of virtual
particles will be straightforward. But something else will "sound
crazy" to you. Then you'll research that until you understand it.
At some point you may decide to take someone's word for it. You may
decide that it is perfectly possible that all particles can be
described in terms of fields and all fields can be described in terms
of particles. Who sometimes happen to carry negative momentum.
OK, so I guess what you're trying to say is that the answer is indeed
an exchange of particles with "negative momentum". I'm familiar with
non-intuitive quantum physics so I'm willing to try to understand such
a concept.
I'm used to photon momentum in the form p=E/c. For this to be
negative, does that mean the photon energy is negative as well? If a
photon is an electromagnetic wavetrain, the fields are non-zero
somewhere, we would expect a postivie energy.. how could an
electromagnetic disturbance have negative energy? Energy ~ (B^2 + E^2)
... if energy is negative we have imaginary fields.
For vector forms, we usually see p=hk (h-bar, k & p are vectors). In
this case, this formula must not apply (?), as the k vector is parallel
to the wavetrain, or the poynting vector.
Another question for you. In addition to virtual photons, which are
created and destroyed within the limits of the uncertainty principle,
there are real photons that we can observe. Is there a real analog to
negative momentum virtual photons, i.e. a real negative momentum photon
that we could observe?
I think QFT is a little on the hard side and you might need a better
motivation to dig into it than wanting to understand something that
"sounds crazy" from the POV of the person who doesn't know the field.
Then again, you may master it. And then something else. And something
else.
And after figuring out all the things those other people have all
already figured out, they will start sharing with you the things that
they find "crazy" and that they haven't figured out yet.
At that point you'd be a physicist.
A quantum field theorist, you mean. My PhD and employment is in
physics already, but I know little of QFT or QCD, as you could tell.
Up to you, as I said.
Thanks for your reply - shevek
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 02:05:56 PM |
|
|
can't you see how absurd your physics becomes. what kind of nonsense is
this virtual particle. soon enough your physics will turn virtual
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
10 Aug 2005 11:02:20 AM |
|
|
the atoms parts in the magnet orbit the same direction at the same time.
As a emf wave from another magnet crosses the atom , will the wave push
the electron forward boath ways around the atom ?
Or will the wave opose and try to change te electrons direction boath
ways around thier orbit ?
How will the wave afect the orbits ?
No motion unless the orbital paths of te atoms parts are changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
10 Aug 2005 01:12:00 PM |
|
|
both, retard
affect, retard
What is "atoms parts" supposed to mean?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
08 Aug 2005 04:57:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
For example, let's take an electron and a positron. If the electron
emits a photon in the direction away from the positron, this will give
it momentum toward the positron. However, this is not an exchange of
particles but a net emission of them. If the emitted particles go
towards the other particle (an exchange), this will be a net repulsion.
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy. Others have answered that the
analogy of force-carrying particles is a mathematical one and the
Feynman diagram reasoning involved in my question is simply misplaced.
Is there a better answer?
Thanks!
I think the error you make has to do with associating too classical a
picture to the Feynman diagram. The diagram is a mnemonic for writing
terms that contribute to an integral. The integration is over all
possible internal values of momentum and energy *including apparently
non-physical ones*.
However, this does point to something that has always bothered me.
Changing the sign of one of the charges of the scattering particle
changes the sign of one factor in the leading terms (say, t-channel
photon exchange between electron-electron or between electron
positron). Summing the lowest-order terms and squaring to get the
cross-sections produces *identical* integrals for electron-electron
scattering and electron-positron scattering. In a way, this makes
sense, because a deflection away from a charge and a pulling around a
charge at small impact parameters should produce the canonical
Rutherford scattering formula, either way. One the other hand, I would
think that so fundamental difference between electrostatic attraction
and repulsion should show up somewhere in the lowest-order calculation.
Have I missed something?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
11 Aug 2005 12:33:48 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123538237.134046.53730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Have I missed something?
Yes
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
========================
or this?
========================
Draper:
Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
at a
time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the
error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
=========================
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
==========================
Then you caved in and ran away, and here you are back again, after
all the work I did, with not so much as a
"party in error MUST acknowledge the error" or a
"Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."
Google remembers it very well.
You are a coward, Draper, and you do not mean the words you say.
That makes you a disingenuous coward.
Nobody can trust you.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 04:04:23 AM |
|
|
yes
you have mist the main point:
messengers that are emitted from one particle to another one
can exert only *repulsion* got it all parrots of the world ???
only stupid mathematicians could dare to bring such idiotic
notion that just exchange of anything in straight lines between
acting and acted particles can exert attraction
if one will say there are messengers that work in a way that i have no
idea
how
that could Be honest and OK
yet anyone dealing with physics should be aware that the problem is
*not solved* *and that should be the right status of it *
to be recognized by anyone
but posing as if the problem is solved is worse than a nasty lie!!!
see for instance my Circlon suggestion
at the end of my home made site.
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
10 Aug 2005 11:30:17 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
yes
you have mist the main point:
messengers that are emitted from one particle to another one
can exert only *repulsion* got it all parrots of the world ???
If the messengers behaved classically, you'd be right. They don't, and
it doesn't matter. You can say, "Well, you can't call them messengers,
then, because 'messengers' in my mind means something altogether
different." That may be so, but that is not the fault of the
theoreticians who describe exactly what those fields do,
mathematically.
only stupid mathematicians could dare to bring such idiotic
notion that just exchange of anything in straight lines
Who said *anything* about straight lines? Fields do not act in straight
lines.
between
acting and acted particles can exert attraction
if one will say there are messengers that work in a way that i have no
idea
how
that could Be honest and OK
yet anyone dealing with physics should be aware that the problem is
*not solved* *and that should be the right status of it *
to be recognized by anyone
but posing as if the problem is solved is worse than a nasty lie!!!
see for instance my Circlon suggestion
at the end of my home made site.
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
16 Aug 2005 03:31:10 AM |
|
|
so what is making them to act in 'curved lines' !!!!!
if you try to answer that you get to a vicious circle of questions
unless....
some enlightenment comes to you ......
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
16 Aug 2005 09:10:04 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
so what is making them to act in 'curved lines' !!!!!
if you try to answer that you get to a vicious circle of questions
unless....
some enlightenment comes to you ......
-----------------------
You are imagining things that are small and confined to a narrow path
through space, which means that path is either straight or curved. That
is a false presumption.
Waves (for example) do not act in narrow paths, nor do they have to
curve, though they certainly spread.
If you are listening to your radio, does sound have to follow you in
straight or curved lines as you walk around the room?
If you can hear someone speaking around the corner of a building, does
that mean that the sound made a curved path around the corner?
You are far too limited in your concepts of what the force messengers
are.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
25 Aug 2005 11:57:02 PM |
|
|
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
electric and magnetic attraction forces are *alleged to be carried by
??........
by photons!!
photons are known to move only in straight lines unless... something is
deviating them
right??
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
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
26 Aug 2005 08:37:31 AM |
|
|
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*
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.
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.
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.
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
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
26 Aug 2005 04:16:36 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
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.
Why can't you say both?
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.
Compton scattering and inverse Compton scattering can conspire here.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
26 Aug 2005 05:02:15 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
PD wrote:
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.
Why can't you say both?
Because the two concepts are mutually incompatible. Waves deliver
momentum continuously, particles do not. Particles are localized, waves
are not.
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.
Compton scattering and inverse Compton scattering can conspire here.
But the likelihood of that happening for *every single photon* that
passes through the slits, even one at a time, is ridiculously,
infinitesimally small -- unless you have a mechanism that demands that
one process follow the other to respect some conservation law.
PD
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
27 Aug 2005 10:04:02 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Because the two concepts are mutually incompatible. Waves deliver
momentum continuously, particles do not. Particles are localized, waves
are not.
They're only incompatible if you're prejudiced toward absolutes.
Compton scattering and inverse Compton scattering can conspire here.
But the likelihood of that happening for *every single photon* that
passes through the slits, even one at a time, is ridiculously,
infinitesimally small -- unless you have a mechanism that demands that
one process follow the other to respect some conservation law.
You don't know the rules for ghosts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/3f76d6cd94967ca2/b18a47880cdaab95#b18a47880cdaab95.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
26 Aug 2005 12:49:46 PM |
|
|
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
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!
-------------
-----------------
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!!
----------
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!!
----------
--------
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
-------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
26 Aug 2005 03:10:16 PM |
|
|
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
-------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
27 Aug 2005 12:41:51 AM |
|
|
it seems that we start to understand each other
we agree that the existing solution is just mathematics!!
and if i brought a few people to understand that i did my share in life
.....
because you are not even ware about how may 'serious scientists
*do not realize it !!
they came to physics from the mathematics school and they think
they know it to the scratch and no need for better understanding!!
that is a bad situation!1
because if you are nor aware of the sick situation
you have no chance to improve it
so the first task of ours is to make people aware of the bad situation
the unsolved situation most of them live in delusion that th existing
solution
is good enough while the real situation is a stuck in th mud
situation!!
so once the 'diagnose' of the decease will be done-
the rest will be done later..
now please remember my Circlon suggestion
once we have a particle that moves naturally in a closed path
everything start to look much simpler
it can hit another bigger particle come back to its mother etc etc
endlessly without loosing momentum
sconce those collisions are fully elastic
and you can build of it
both particles and forces just from that basic strange basic particle
it is then wave like and particle like as well!!
see it at the end of my site.tangibly and simple !!more then ever!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
27 Aug 2005 12:45:39 AM |
|
|
Light interacting with a free electron collapses its wave.
Sometimes there is no wave!!!
I believe there is always a particle. The can watch them move in
chambers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
27 Aug 2005 03:59:04 AM |
|
|
ok
if you say so ........
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
27 Aug 2005 09:51:52 PM |
|
|
loosing -> losing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
08 Aug 2005 03:20:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
For example, let's take an electron and a positron. If the electron
emits a photon in the direction away from the positron, this will give
it momentum toward the positron. However, this is not an exchange of
particles but a net emission of them. If the emitted particles go
towards the other particle (an exchange), this will be a net repulsion.
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy. Others have answered that the
analogy of force-carrying particles is a mathematical one and the
Feynman diagram reasoning involved in my question is simply misplaced.
Is there a better answer?
Thanks!
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
09 Aug 2005 09:21:06 AM |
|
|
Hi Shevek Using a push away force fits easy for repulsion.of magnetic
like charges,but gravity only attracts,and that attraction between
object to bring them together using virtual photons is still open for a
better theory. Einstien spent his last 30 years on this quest. I have
spent all my life. My hope is my "Spin is in theory" will give the
answer. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Oath" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
08 Aug 2005 05:19:37 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:
Every now and then somebody expalains electromagnetic forces as
"exchanges of virtual photons". My question is simple: how can this
be, for the case of attractive forces?
For example, let's take an electron and a positron. If the electron
emits a photon in the direction away from the positron, this will give
it momentum toward the positron. However, this is not an exchange of
particles but a net emission of them. If the emitted particles go
towards the other particle (an exchange), this will be a net repulsion.
Some have answered that the exchanged particles have a "negative
momentum" - supposedly a momentum directed oppositely to the velocity
vector! This sounds completely crazy. Others have answered that the
analogy of force-carrying particles is a mathematical one and the
Feynman diagram reasoning involved in my question is simply misplaced.
Is there a better answer?
Thanks!
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson
The supplied link explains nothing. Just as Wormley understands nothing.
He just posts links or repeats other's catch-phrases. Not surprising
since he's just a computer nerd, not a physicist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
12 Aug 2005 03:37:00 PM |
|
|
Good grief. Everyone knows the exchange particle in attractive forces
is the boomerang. Have two people on ice skates facing away from each
other playing catch with a boomerang.
Dave Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
14 Aug 2005 09:39:13 PM |
|
|
ha scritto:
Good grief. Everyone knows the exchange particle in attractive forces
is the boomerang. Have two people on ice skates facing away from each
other playing catch with a boomerang.
Dave Perry
Thanks Dave!
Good idea.
Of course there is the question of the air resistance forces that make
the boomerangs (in this case virtual photons) change direction..
perhaps another set of virtual particles can handle that?
Cheers -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
14 Aug 2005 11:33:43 PM |
|
|
Thats exactly leads you to the 'Circlon' !!
(copyrighter Y.Porat more than 10 years ago)
you see that strange idea is penetrating slowly but surely!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how? |
15 Aug 2005 02:11:22 AM |
|
|
In article <1124080423.128568.290270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
That
***{What is the antecedent of "that"? More to the point: why did you
snip out all of the information that would have made it possible to tell
what you were talking about? Were you responding to one of my posts? If
so, which one? And, within that post, to which specific sentence were
you referring? --MJ}***
s exactly leads you to the 'Circlon' !!
***{Which is what? --MJ}***
(copyrighter Y.Porat more than 10 years ago)
you see that strange idea is penetrating slowly but surely!!
***{Never heard of it. Moreover--I'm guessing here, as noted above--if
you are referring to my explanation of the Coulomb force in terms of
posite/negite interactions, I published that idea in a private,
copyrighted newsletter entitled My Response, issue #62, dated Nov. 1,
1992 (and had worked it out years before that). Here, between the lines
of asterisks, is what I said at that time, in response to a letter from
a subscriber:
*************************************
To MN94110
This is in response to your letter of October 15, in which you
challenged me to explain "electric fields" without using the concept of
force at a distance. Here is the way you put it:
"Like charges attract each other, while unlike charges repel. The force
of attraction or repulsion varies in direct proportion to the product of
the charges, and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance
between them. This relationship is known as Coulomb's law, and, while it
is very similar in form to Newton's law of universal gravitation, nobody
has ever been able to demonstrate a connection between them. Since you
deny the concept of 'force at a distance,' please explain Coulomb's law
in terms of collision theory. If you fail, I will charge you with the
cardinal sin of objectivism, the use of a stolen concept."
My reaction: You are right in perceiving that, by rejecting "force at a
distance," I reject the prevailing thinking about electric forces. But
that doesn't mean that I am using a stolen concept if I employ Coulomb's
Law in my thinking. Coulomb's Law, like Newton's law of gravitation, is
a verbal/mathematical description of the way things behave. I can accept
that they behave that way, without claiming to understand the whys and
the wherefores.
Of course, the fact that I am not obligated to explain Coulomb's Law in
terms of collision theory does not mean that I cannot. It is really
rather easy, once you accept the existence of microparticles, to come up
with such explanations. For example:
(1) Suppose that protons emit p-microparticles and that electrons emit
e-microparticles.
(2) Suppose that when a p-microparticle strikes an electron, the
electron emits particles with twice as much momentum from the opposite
side, and when a p-microparticle strikes a proton, it is absorbed.
(3) Suppose that when an e-microparticle strikes a proton, the proton
emits particles with twice as much momentum from the opposite side, and
when an e-microparticle strikes an electron, it is absorbed.
Result: we have Coulomb's Law without using the concept of force at a
distance!
Of course, there are other explanations of Coulomb's law that do not
violate my metaphysical base. The one mentioned above is cited only as
an example. It is the simplest variant that I know of, but I have
considered several others. The key point here is not that this is the
final and correct explanation for Coulomb's law, but rather that it is
not necessary to violate the principle of continuity in order to attempt
to explain the phenomena of physics. Theoretical physics has been stuck
on high center for a very, very long time; and the reason lies in a
fundamental inattention to, and even contempt for, the metaphysical
considerations upon which physics must be based.
*************************************
As noted above, I put forth the idea as a hypothesis, not as fact. Other
explanations are possible, though I view them as unlikely, due to a
synergistic meshing between the above explanation and the reasoning
necessary to explain magnetic fields. In any case, whatever its ultimate
fate, I do not owe the idea to percolation through the culture from
other sources. Right or wrong, it is something I figured out all by
myself.
As an aside I would note that if the above hypothesis is correct, then
the photon is not the carrier of the electric force, and the various
attempts to set a lower limit on the photon mass by attempting to
measure the degradation of the Coulomb field, have in fact been setting
a lower limit on the posite/negite mass, since it is those particles,
not photons, which carry the electric force. (The idea underlying those
experiments is that the range of a force is inversely proportional to
the masses of the particles which carry the force. Result: the more
slowly the Coulomb field degrades, the smaller must be the masses of the
particles that carry the Coulomb force.) The implication, of course, is
that there is no experimental evidence supporting the conclusion that
the photon mass is less than hf/c^2. All that remains of the various
"zero photon mass" claims are the attempts by the intellectually
challenged to bring about that result by stipulation, none of which are
rationally defensible.
Anyway, that's enough for now.
--Mitchell Jones}***
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
