| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2004 08:37:39 AM |
| Object: |
Do Virtual Photons Exist? |
Do Virtual Photons Exist?
The Aether was original conceived as a means of explaining "forces acting
at a distance" (i.e.- electric, magnetic, gravitation, et al). When the idea of
the classical Aether was abandoned early in the century, there was a need to
find another means of explaining these forces because, if it were not possible
to explain them by some other means then it would be necessary to retain the
Aether and the absolute reference frame it represented. The elimination of that
reference frame was an absolute imperative of the political agenda of the
academic community. Fortunately, the advent of quantum theory allowed Dr.
Feynmann to generate the idea that these forces were produced by the exchange
of "virtual particles". These particles were so named because they popped into
and out of existence for periods of time that were so short that the rules of
quantum physics insured that their temporary existence did not violate the Law
of Conservation of Energy.
It is easy to understand how these particles could provide a force over a
distance. A "virtual particle" emitted from one point would absorb momentum and
travel ballistically to another where it would release that momentum. The net
result would be force acting between the points. The situation is analogous to
the effect observed when two athletes throw a medicine ball back and forth to
each other. Difficulty with the analogy is that the throwing of the medicine
ball can only produce a repulsive force; it cannot produce an attractive force!
The mathematics associated with the force production by "virtual particles"
particles, however, does allow for the production of attractive forces, but,
since no explanation as to how this is possible is provided, one is left with
the suspicion that this is another example of a solution where an effect that
is allowed by the mathematics involved is being used outside of the constraints
imposed by the physical realities of the problem. These realities require a
rather unusual exchange of momentum to be involved. In order to produce the
attractive force, the "virtual photon" would have to be launched with a
momentum represented by a propagation direction away from its target, reverse
its momentum (direction of travel), go past its target and repeat the process
so as to acquire a momentum in the required direction as it struck the target
from behind. (If anyone can provide a different explanation I would like to
hear it.) Of course, if the "virtual photon" were propagating through a medium,
such as the Aether, there would be no conceptual problem, the "virtual particle
could make the necessary exchange of momentum with the medium. (A boomerang
returns to the thrower because it exchanges momentum with a medium, air. But
then, if the Aether were present we would have no need to consider the
existence of "virtual photons".
There is no need to resort to theoretical arguments, however. If virtual
photons produce electric and magnetic forces, they should be observable.
Consider a large electromagnet, such as is used in an MIR machine. A recent
news report described an unfortunate incident where a steel oxygen bottle was
not properly mounted to its wall bracket. The magnetic field of the MIR pulled
the bottle to the machine and killed a boy who was being scanned. It is obvious
that the room was filled with a large and extremely powerful magnetic field. If
"virtual photons" were present in that room, they would have produced a level
of electromagnetic interference that would scream their presence. If electric
and magnetic forces were produced by "virtual photons", they would have to also
effect any electromagnetic detectors in their vicinity and one would expect
that both natural and man-made electric and magnetic fields would render
electromagnetic communication impossible.
An experiment is described in Chapter 4 of "The Einstein Hoax" in which a
strong electric field is produced inside of an evacuated chamber and an antenna
is located between the electrodes. Using a radiation detector that covers the
entire spectrum would allow the detection of any spurious photons that acted to
produce the attractive force. Its a simple experiment and is one which should
be performed it science is to accept "virtual photons" as meaningful.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "DAH" |
|
| Title: re:Do Virtual Photons Exist? |
30 Sep 2004 12:33:35 PM |
|
|
'Virtual photons' may be an artifice of QED without physical reality.
They are however, as Feynman found, a useful theoretical tool in
quantifying physical behavior.
My question to you is this. If 'virtual photons' do not manifest in
physical reality, would that not also question the physical reality
of the 'virtual vacuum'?
DAH 9/30/04
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist? |
30 Sep 2004 05:58:51 PM |
|
|
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<415c436f_2@127.0.0.1>...
'Virtual photons' may be an artifice of QED without physical reality.
They are however, as Feynman found, a useful theoretical tool in
quantifying physical behavior.
My question to you is this. If 'virtual photons' do not manifest in
physical reality, would that not also question the physical reality
of the 'virtual vacuum'?
DAH 9/30/04
COMMENT
Virtual photons are as much (or as little) a part of physical reality
as "real" photons. See that light beam? "Observe" that microwave
beam? Why do you think they're made of "real" photons? Answer:
"because" they are EM fields and quantum theory demands that all
fields be made of particles (and vice-versa).
Now, there are all kinds of EM fields which aren't like light beams or
microwave beams or any kind of standard EM radiation which decays with
distance by the 1/r^2 relationship, and so on.
For example, there are static fields. Magnetic static fields are
dipoles, and decay as 1/r3 in intensit. Electric static fields go as
1/r^2 to be sure, but they are funny in not having any energy flux
traveling through them. They just sit there. All these fields contain
energy, though. The energy can't be extracted unless you make the
field disappear. If you believe in quantum mechanics, these fields are
made of photons, too, but not photons that are going anywhere. So we
give them another name, and that's "virtual".
There's a last kind of funny short-range EM field that is not static
but has a fequency. It's the kind that exists close to antennas,
inside transformers, and inside MRI machines, and around metal
detectors and tesla coils, and the like. You can see it work-- hold
up a fluorescent bulb near a tesla coil and it will light up. No wires
needed. This works just as well in vacuum, so it's clearly an EM wave
that's going it. Energy leaves the coil and lights the light. If you
don't have the light there, the amount of energy it takes to energize
the coil drops, so clearly energy is being transferred from "here" to
"there".
But this last kind of energy is NOT normal EM waves made of "real"
photons. For one thing, it doen't drop off as 1/r^2 like a "real" EM
wave, but rather as 1/r^3. That simple fact along doomed Teslas dream
of wireless power transmission. The other odd thing about this EM
field is that it's more like a bankcheck or banknote, than it is like
a precious coin. If a bank loses a gold coin the money is gone from
the bank, even if nobody ever spends the money. That's normal EM
waves-- the energy is lost from the transmitter on emission, even if
nobody picks up the signal, and ALL the energy is right there in the
wave. But the other kind of EM waves, the kind around Tesla coils and
metal detectors, are like bankchecks or banknotes: if nobody cashes
the check, or if the banknote is lost or burned, the bank never loses
the money (and if fact if you can prove a peice of paper currency was
destroyed, the Federal bank will give you a new one for that reason,
just as if you'd lost a check. That's what a greenback IS-- just a
check written on the Federal reserve). Similarly, for the virtual
field, if nobody uses the energy, the transmitter never loses the
energy.
So these funny virtual or "near" fields are (partly) made of energy
and transfer energy, but not by the normal kind of photons that fly
off into infinite space. Rather, if these fields are made of photons,
they are a sort of tethered genie that stays around the source, and
doesn't contain all of its energy within itself (some, yes, but not
all). Some of a virtual photon's energy is promised energy, like a
bankcheck or clad dollar coin which promises money, rather than a gold
coin which contains all needed value within itself. We call these
photons "virtual." But to say a virtual photon isn't real is like
saying paper currency isn't "real money." If you can redeam a virtual
photon for a real one (think of that fluorescent light near the Tesla
coil) it's "real" enough for all practical purposes.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist? |
02 Oct 2004 01:06:47 AM |
|
|
(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote in message news:<79cf0a8.0409301458.3d227634@posting.google.com>...
dharder@bnl-dot-gov.no-spam.invalid (DAH) wrote in message news:<415c436f_2@127.0.0.1>...
'Virtual photons' may be an artifice of QED without physical reality.
They are however, as Feynman found, a useful theoretical tool in
quantifying physical behavior.
My question to you is this. If 'virtual photons' do not manifest in
physical reality, would that not also question the physical reality
of the 'virtual vacuum'?
DAH 9/30/04
COMMENT
field disappear. If you believe in quantum mechanics, these fields are
made of photons, too, but not photons that are going anywhere. So we
give them another name, and that's "virtual".
very nice of you that you realise that what id doing any attarction force
is not the photon that we know from our every life
it is something differnet!!
so the name ;photon' is completely deluding and unjustified:
even from the single reason that
had it been a particle that moves naturally in a sdtright line
*we would have noticed those photons that **missed the target**
(and there is no reason in the world why some of them will not miss the target
even for ststistic reasons)!!
so it is not a photon whatsoever
morover:
it is not *even similar* to a photon it is soemting completely different
*and more basic than a photon*
the vierual photon is a matemathical artifact
not natures cration!!
now
have you ever heared about the *Circlon*??
a very basic particle that :
MOVES NATURALLY IN A CLOSED CIRCLE
??
-----------
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist? |
30 Sep 2004 11:52:30 AM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
Do Virtual Photons Exist?
[snip 80 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems (so does the proposal)
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
