It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 61
74
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If when EM radiation is created, it looks like this: O ..... And that circle, expands in area and circumfrence. That is 1 photon, the circle as a whole expanding, anywhere along its circumference would be measured as '1 photon', and the nature of how this circles circumference increases, is that it does so as a wave.
That's not what this slide says, which explanation is correct?



You should at least read Feynman's lectures, if you're going to try to give experimenters advice on how to conduct their experiments.

I would also note that quantum entanglement was predicted by the math of QM long before it was actually confirmed in experiment. It is then also noteworthy that experimental results matched the math, so to people who say "It's just math", in some cases that may be true but in the case of QM and entanglement, it seems to do a very good job of predicting reality. The reason for bringing this up is, there is nothing I know of in the math to support any of the contentions you're making about the motion of the Earth affecting the results of entanglement experiments, though as I noted we do have models that would predict effects from the Earth's movement in other experiments.

For example the Earth's motion could possibly affect the observed frequency of entangled photons depending on the observer's frame of reference, but the point of entanglement experiments isn't to look at frequency, it's to look at correlation of entangled properties like spin. We get the frequency shifts due to relative motion whether there is entanglement or not.

So again, I suggest reading Feynman's lectures to get your models sorted out.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's not what this slide says, which explanation is correct?



My explanation is correct of course. Is that explanation you are using for a single degree of acceleration of a single electron? If not, my explanation is fundamental and correct.




I would also note that quantum entanglement was predicted by the math of QM long before it was actually confirmed in experiment.


No, this is the problem I had a problem with, that it was faultily inferred, I will still never believe superposition, and that heisnberg certainty principle probability is a statement of nature. There is a classical reason for entanglement, There can only be classical, your quantum is just a greater depth of classical nature. The only time classical nature can be avoided is with literal artificiality, as in creating digital computers, simulations, systems. Either the reality we measure is real and classical, or not classical and there fore not real. Which would mean we are in a computer program of some sort, that does not follow real laws of physics, but digital programs of impossible to be real physics.




It is then also noteworthy that experimental results matched the math, so to people who say "It's just math", in some cases that may be true but in the case of QM and entanglement, it seems to do a very good job of predicting reality. The reason for bringing this up is, there is nothing I know of in the math to support any of the contentions you're making about the motion of the Earth affecting the results of entanglement experiments, though as I noted we do have models that would predict effects from the Earth's movement in other experiments.


Yea because its very likely it slipped their mind to consider such a fact of reality.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There can only be classical, your quantum is just a greater depth of classical nature.
Don't you think every physicist would like everything to be as logical and orderly as classical experiments, and that they would look for such explanations?

But on the contrary, experimental results like a single photon passing through both slits of a double slit and interfering with itself, or the alternate version dragonridr explained, cannot be explained classically.

So undesirable were the implications of quantum mechanics that some of the founders of the science, people like Max Planck and Erwin Schrodinger, had great difficulty accepting that it could not be reconciled classically despite their efforts to do so:

Max Planck

Planck tried to grasp the meaning of energy quanta, but to no avail. "My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." Even several years later, other physicists like Rayleigh, Jeans, and Lorentz set Planck's constant to zero in order to align with classical physics, but Planck knew well that this constant had a precise nonzero value.
So, your desire to explain the quantum classically makes you just as human as every other physicist who has wanted to do the same thing including Max Planck. But even he realized that to do so meant contradicting experimental evidence:


"I am unable to understand Jeans' stubbornness — he is an example of a theoretician as should never be existing, the same as Hegel was for philosophy. So much the worse for the facts if they don't fit."
The quantum facts don't fit classically, so Planck didn't like that either, and he wanted the same thing you want, to explain it classically, but when the facts don't fit, would you want him to call you an "example of a theoretician as should never be existing"? If you can succeed in explain the quantum classically where Planck and others failed, then do it and claim your Nobel prize, but I think even you realize your knowledge is not in enough depth to even realize the amount of experimental evidence which contradicts your assertion that quantum experiments can be explained classically. Your approach thus far has been to deny such experiments, which does not support this claim you made:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am one of the most reasonable people who have ever existed. I am someone who is most cautious and has most care for the truth.
We would both like for that to be true, but to be frank, your cavalier denial of experimental results which contradict the way you'd like nature to behave show that you have little regard for the truth, and that you don't seem that reasonable.

As I said maybe you should try doing these experiments for yourself like dragonridr's students, so you will understand them better and find that they are not so easy to dismiss.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Don't you think every physicist would like everything to be as logical and orderly as classical experiments, and that they would look for such explanations?

But on the contrary, experimental results like a single photon passing through both slits of a double slit and interfering with itself, or the alternate version dragonridr explained, cannot be explained classically.


Um, yes, I will wait to see how you respond to my claim that the creation of EM radiation from an accelerated electron is like a circle that expands, then this circle can pass through both slits, and this is classical.

Moreover, if Mbkennel uses hilbert space as an excuse for potential quantum - classical differentiation and excuse for weirdness, then my statement that all is classical, holds true, because from the quantum perspective and scale, the quanta is classical, and its interactions are classically and logically explainable and understood. It is merely a spatially temporal lagging which at first glance causes the quantum world, appeared from the perspective of the classical world, to appear 'not like the classical world', the quantum world is still classical, just different then the classical world we know, and because reality functions, they obviously do connect to one another, as they are consequences of the same thing, they are mutually inclusive.

Imagine you were a giant bigger than earth, and you had enough hands to hold every mountain in your hand, and each mountain had a glass pole that started at the thickness or cylindrical diameter of 100 yards and from the bottom of the mountain where this pole starts at that thickness, to downwards, the cylinder got thinner and thinner, until it was the thickness of a few atoms, and you held 100 mountains in your hands, and there was someone on your shoulder measuring the movements of how you moved the mountains in your hands, sometimes you just tilted your wrist and twisted them not even moving them laterly much, sometimes you moved them up and down, sometimes you moved left to right, back to forth, and what I mean by tilt and twist, sometimes you rocked them, and there was a person (or people) on the ground, keeping track of all the ways in which the 'pin point' glass pole tips moved. Sure with the non twisting rocky movements, there could be scaleable correlations between the distances and paths of the points from below and the mountains from above, but the other degree of freedom, the twistness, I think may be more difficult to correlate, holding two mountains in your hand by just twisting them you could touch those glass tips, and the mountains would be no greater or lesser distance from one another. The quantum world may be like this, we do stuff up here with large stuff, that is all correlated to the smallest stuff, and because we cant view and measure from the smallest scales looking up, we cant figure out the exact correlations between the big stuff movements and the small stuff movements.



So undesirable were the implications of quantum mechanics that some of the founders of the science, people like Max Planck and Erwin Schrodinger, had great difficulty accepting that it could not be reconciled classically despite their efforts to do so:

Max Planck

Planck tried to grasp the meaning of energy quanta, but to no avail. "My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble." Even several years later, other physicists like Rayleigh, Jeans, and Lorentz set Planck's constant to zero in order to align with classical physics, but Planck knew well that this constant had a precise nonzero value.
So, your desire to explain the quantum classically makes you just as human as every other physicist who has wanted to do the same thing including Max Planck. But even he realized that to do so meant contradicting experimental evidence:


"I am unable to understand Jeans' stubbornness — he is an example of a theoretician as should never be existing, the same as Hegel was for philosophy. So much the worse for the facts if they don't fit."
The quantum facts don't fit classically, so Planck didn't like that either, and he wanted the same thing you want, to explain it classically, but when the facts don't fit, would you want him to call you an "example of a theoretician as should never be existing"? If you can succeed in explain the quantum classically where Planck and others failed, then do it and claim your Nobel prize, but I think even you realize your knowledge is not in enough depth to even realize the amount of experimental evidence which contradicts your assertion that quantum experiments can be explained classically. Your approach thus far has been to deny such experiments, which does not support this claim you made:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am one of the most reasonable people who have ever existed. I am someone who is most cautious and has most care for the truth.
We would both like for that to be true, but to be frank, your cavalier denial of experimental results which contradict the way you'd like nature to behave show that you have little regard for the truth, and that you don't seem that reasonable.


I dont assume that the experiments prove your interpretation of them, I believe the universe is still classical, if real and not a digital program or simulation, I dont believe that your interpretation proves or explains anything about the universe, it is just a guess from ignorance as mine is. I believe in our ignorance there is still hope that we can figure out why the experiments are proving things that seem weird to us, though in a logical and classical way. I dont think all the logical classical interpretations of experiments have been exhausted, and I dont think your interpretation offers any interpretation at all, you saying 'welp, it doesnt make sense, reality doesn't make sense', is not a description or idea, it is nothing, it is the same statement of any animal or baby, 'welp, I have no idea what anything is or what is going on, but I will play along'. Anything that ever happens must have a physical reason for happening. Even if two particles at a distance, can signal each other automatically instantly, there must be a reason that this can happen, there must be something about their physically surroundings, or their own physicality, which allows this to happen, there must be a reason, there must be a way, there must be a why, there can not be a correlation between them that exists, and acts, without a correlation existing and acting, something has to be occurring, for some exact reason, we do not know what or why it is occurring, but there is a reason. That reason will always be logical and classical, even in fake realities, even in computer simulations with fake physics and video games, there are exact reasons the fake physics are the way they are, even though very complex, including language and logic gates and programming and computer screens and electricity and human history etc.


edit on 20-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



edit on 20-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ive figured out what the problem is you assume science is a guess. In quantum mechanics we make what is called predictions and than we run experiments to see if it happens the way QM tells us it should. We are making huge breakthroughs in science using QM because it tells us these things are possible. Its led to the discovery of superconductors, Rydberg molecule,lasers,Nano materials,Microscopes with 50-nanometre resolution and many more i cant think of off the top of my head. How where these discoveries made simple QM told us its possible and guess what it is and it works just like we expected.

At this point your arguing against reality its like me saying i dont believe in helicopters. I can sit here and argue with their lack of aerodynamics they wont fly. And if we look at the original views of aerodynamics id be right but later we learned a rotating blade can indeed form a wing. Thus are knowledge changed and our understanding of flight has increased. Your arguing helicopters cant fly and when shown one still continue to argue. We cant argue with with what QM has shown us is it complete no of course not. Is it on the right track has to be otherwise we woud have disproved it through experiments. So to make it short helicopters do fly and QM does indeed model reality now where down to refining it just like we make better helicopters as our understanding increased.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ive figured out what the problem is you assume science is a guess.


No my problem is not with science first of all, I am focused on this very specific area of science, that is fundametnal physics, a lot of which gets into areas of theory and abstraction. My problem is that that I do not think all the people that do this work or even many of them are the smartest a human can be, as David Hilbert said "Physics is too hard for Physicists".



In quantum mechanics we make what is called predictions and than we run experiments to see if it happens the way QM tells us it should. We are making huge breakthroughs in science using QM because it tells us these things are possible. Its led to the discovery of superconductors, Rydberg molecule,lasers,Nano materials,Microscopes with 50-nanometre resolution and many more i cant think of off the top of my head. How where these discoveries made simple QM told us its possible and guess what it is and it works just like we expected.


I am not talking about any of that stuff. Just because it is a useful tool to do some things and seemingly the right direction of math usage and modeling, does not mean all your interpretations of reality are accurate or true or ideal (meaning true).



At this point your arguing against reality its like me saying i dont believe in helicopters. I can sit here and argue with their lack of aerodynamics they wont fly. And if we look at the original views of aerodynamics id be right but later we learned a rotating blade can indeed form a wing. Thus are knowledge changed and our understanding of flight has increased. Your arguing helicopters cant fly and when shown one still continue to argue. We cant argue with with what QM has shown us is it complete no of course not. Is it on the right track has to be otherwise we woud have disproved it through experiments. So to make it short helicopters do fly and QM does indeed model reality now where down to refining it just like we make better helicopters as our understanding increased.


How about you try answering the questions I have been asking teacher. When an electron is accelerated by 1 unit of the minimal degree of acceleration needed for an electron to be accelerated ( I figure it might be "at all") to create a unit of EM radiation, a photon, is the creation of EM radiation, the creation of a circle (more or less) which increases in area (which includes increase in circumference, just trying to be thorough because, well, you know you)?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

To answer your question no. Em radiation can be directional like a laser or random like a radio signal. but they dont spread out to form a circle at least not one wave anyway not sure where you got that idea. Now multiple waves can expand outward from a source making it seem like a circle is that what your referring to? For example do you know what a signal to noise ratio is? We encode a signal on a em wave but in radio our wave expands as it travels eventually stretching it making it hard to detect our encoded signal. Its still there just the wave has increased in size as it travels away from the source. But this tells you something it tells you each em wave or signal is separate and expanding in direction of travel and not a loop.
edit on 9/21/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
To answer your question no. Em radiation can be directional like a laser or random like a radio signal. but they dont spread out to form a circle at least not one wave anyway not sure where you got that idea.
He didn't get the idea that a photon can spread out from you. Recall you explained how a photon does NOT spread out, in answer to his previous question a few months ago. I think he's forgotten about that, since he's now talking about photons spreading out. Or else he just ignored what you said like he ignored the slide I posted above and said he's right and the slide is wrong.

But yes, he's probably thinking of something like Maxwell's equations which describe EM radiation classically which works pretty well to describe the apparent behavior of many photons, but Maxwell wasn't even aware of individual photons when he developed them, so of course they don't describe what a single photon will do:

Maxwell's equations

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact laws of the universe, but are a classical approximation to the more accurate and fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics. In most cases, though, quantum deviations from Maxwell's equations are immeasurably small. Exceptions occur when the particle nature of light is important or for very strong electric fields.


Imafungi, note the statement: "Exceptions occur when the particle nature of light is important"; you can't use Maxwell's equations to predict the behavior of a single photon.

edit on 21-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Answer the questions in my last reply to you please, as I attempt to answer all your questions towards me.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Um, yes, I will wait to see how you respond to my claim that the creation of EM radiation from an accelerated electron is like a circle that expands, then this circle can pass through both slits, and this is classical.
That was my response to this which was the closest thing to a question in your post:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Um, yes, I will wait to see how you respond to my claim that the creation of EM radiation from an accelerated electron is like a circle that expands, then this circle can pass through both slits, and this is classical.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

To answer your question no. Em radiation can be directional like a laser or random like a radio signal. but they dont spread out to form a circle at least not one wave anyway not sure where you got that idea. Now multiple waves can expand outward from a source making it seem like a circle is that what your referring to? For example do you know what a signal to noise ratio is? We encode a signal on a em wave but in radio our wave expands as it travels eventually stretching it making it hard to detect our encoded signal. Its still there just the wave has increased in size as it travels away from the source. But this tells you something it tells you each em wave or signal is separate and expanding in direction of travel and not a loop.


Wait, why are you so sure? What proof do you have? A single electron, point like particle or sphere, is accelerated, the EM field surrounds it on all sides, why would EM radiation then be propagated at 1 'infinitesimal direction', instead of 'all directions surrounding a point or sphere', but I admit it may be more like a 2d plane circle wave, and not a sphere. Making it very similar to a stone dropped in water. There is no reason to believe that a single electron accelerated will only 'spurt out 1 tiny particle in 1 exact direction', there is no evidence this is how nature works. The only evidence would be that the way you make your machines you have to squeeze a photon out of a nozzle, and then detect it at one exact point, this doesnt mean the fundamental lacking of obviousness and thought from your lacking of thinking and understanding and drawing appropriate conclusions says that without explanation or comprehension the field surrounding an accelerated electron produces a tiny blip from a single point of one of its 'sides' that travels as a single photon point in 1 direction.

Even if an electron is 2d (abhahahahahahah gosh darnnnnn lsfsjdlkfjklsdjklfsd YEAH RIGHT!!!!!) well, then I guess you cant appropriately describe the nature of its acceleration, but since when do you care about truth of comprehending nature as it is, and it was accelerated, and it is coupled to the EM field on all sides, there is no reason to believe the EM field surrounding it would react in such a way that the field would collapse only at 1 precise point surrounding the electron, and then continue to propagate that way.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Um, yes, I will wait to see how you respond to my claim that the creation of EM radiation from an accelerated electron is like a circle that expands, then this circle can pass through both slits, and this is classical.
That was my response to this which was the closest thing to a question in your post:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Um, yes, I will wait to see how you respond to my claim that the creation of EM radiation from an accelerated electron is like a circle that expands, then this circle can pass through both slits, and this is classical.


Ok, yes, my bad. Well consider what I say is true, as I only have used the physics I have learned since I started learning them, and used all of the answers from all my experience about physics from yall and from the masters, that I have drawn the undeniable conclusion that fundamentally EM radiation is reacted via an accelerated electron by propagating at a perpendicular angle to the direction of acceleration, as a circle ring of EM propagation surrounding the point like particle or sphere of electron. This concept is unavoidable if you are truly honest. You cannot dismiss this concept with saying no many times or loudly. You must think about it. Dont give me diagrams or links, tell me why what I say cannot be so, I am not going anywhere, please offer me an explanation from your heart and soul, as to why you state what I believe is wrong, and why you believe you stating I am wrong is right.

Oh I forgot I started with consider what I say is true, but maybe I should take things slow, and discuss this problem before moving on, see how you respond.
edit on 21-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I have drawn the undeniable conclusion that fundamentally EM radiation is reacted via an accelerated electron by propagating at a perpendicular angle to the direction of acceleration, as a circle ring of EM propagation surrounding the point like particle or sphere of electron.
Maxwell's equations suggest that classically and as the link I cited said, in many cases quantum deviations from this classical approach are so small as to be immeasurable. This is especially so at lower frequencies thus lower photon energies where the quantized nature of the EM radiation is difficult to detect because of things like thermal radiation in the detection apparatus. But as the frequency increases to say, that of visible light, both wavelike and particle like properties can be observed, and at even higher frequencies/energy levels the particle like properties become even more prominent and easier to detect.

I'm not going to take you through every related experiment ever done as this would take too much time and it's what reading is for, but at least go back to about 1900 when we had the ultraviolet catastrophe in physics. This catastrophe resulted from trying to interpret observations classically using wave properties of EM radiation. As I said earlier, Max Planck came up with the quantum idea but he still wanted it to be explained classically, but he never did and he probably never came to grips with this though he ALWAYS respected experimental results, which is more than I can say for you.

Then Einstein came along and said Planck's mathematical explanation wasn't just math, those quantized particles of light were real, which solved the UV catastrophe, and THAT is what Einstein got the Nobel prize for (his 1905 photoelectric effect paper), not relativity:


The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, was a prediction of late 19th century/early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power.

...Albert Einstein solved the problem by postulating that Planck's quanta were real physical particles—what we now call photons, not just a mathematical fiction. He modified statistical mechanics in the style of Boltzmann to an ensemble of photons. Einstein's photon had an energy proportional to its frequency and also explained an unpublished law of Stokes and the photoelectric effect.
There is literally a mountain of evidence for these photons, how they behave and so on but again if you're dealing with lower frequencies of EM radiation or if you're not really looking for them, Maxwell's equations are a good classical approximation of QED but QED is the more complete and accurate theory.

Now if you think your waves coming from the moving electron can explain away the photoelectric effect and solve the UV catastrophe without photons, and the thousands of other experiments confirming photons and their behavior, I'd love to hear how.

The scope of your description is basically the electromagnetic model shown here which isn't a bad model, but it's not as comprehensive as QED. This is from page 2 of the book "Fundamentals of Photonics":



Your denial of, or ignorance of, the more comprehensive model of QED or in this diagram it's called "Quantum Optics", doesn't mean it's not there and supported by mountains of evidence. On the other hand, as the excerpt explains, in many cases, the electromagnetic approximation alone is entirely satisfactory, as are the even simpler models like wave optics and ray optics if they can satisfactorily explain experimental results, but all three have limitations at some point, which are resolved by applying the more comprehensive models.
edit on 21-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are completely ignoring what I am saying, and not offering any idea as to what I am saying is wrong. You have an idea of what a photon is in your head, and I sense that idea is a dot or a particle. You are not thinking this through. There are a lot of steps we need to take intellectually to comprehend the environement of these fundamental systems we are talking about. We are trying to focus on the existence of the electron, and the existence of EM radiation, that is what you and I are discussing right now. 2 things, that are intimately related and connected, we only have to come to agreement about two things, do you really think I want to think the wrong thing? Do you really think I am trying to just be annoying, or not capable of believing a pure truth if it is presented to me? Do I not seem like I care about understanding the nature of nature correctly? Instead of pre determining that anything I can possibly think or say is valueless, unwarranted, groundless, baseless, and wrong, try to actually think about what I am saying, I am always thinking about what you are saying, I am only asking questions about what you think and what you are saying.

Ok, so. Like I said, we are discussing the existence of an electron, and the existence of EM radiation. So I will ask some questions I hope you can think about and answer from your own comprehension and thoughts.

Can a single electron be appropriately likened to a point like particle or sphere?

How is a single electron coupled to the EM field?

Does the EM field exist independently from this single electron?

In what way does the EM field exist independently from this single electron? Is it very unlike the stress energy tensor of gravity field? Which exists independently of mass.

Its a different sort of material field, one we are not familiar with, conceptually? The EM field that exists independently of the electron is composed of ___________? Is it pure energy, or pure material particles or _________? Or , lol, pure lines of abstract force that dont exist but do exist but dont exist but do exist but are only an abstrat approximation but there is actually something there that exists independent the electron but it doesnt really exist but its material but its not physical but its not energy but its particles that are sometimes waves? (just kidding, all questions are serious, that was an attempt of ridicule, dont let it be an excuse to dodge all the extremely important questions I am asking, I am channeling the greatest physicists who have ever lived, when I ask these serious of questions I am asking you, they are all proud of me, rooting for me)

How exactly is this EM field which exists independently from the electron connected/coupled to the electron? Depends on your other answers, is it pure lines that are touching the electron, is it a string of particles that are touching the electron, which I suppose would be a line, is it a dense collection of particles touching the electron which I suppose would be a medium, is it nearly infinite sheets of nearly 2d planes that intersect that give the dual electro and magnetic nature that are touching the electron?

In my beginnings of digging into the holy and sacred subject of intelligence attempting to comprehend the reality of the reality which forced it to exist and become intelligent, or physics, I as I always do, corned the subject of nature between electron and EM radiation, to see what the smartest knowers of the subject had decided was truth. And I arrived at the conclusion, that fundamentally, the nature of electron and EM radiation, is brought about, when an electron is accelerated, meaning an electrons momentum is altered. Trusting the most knowledgeable men on the subject, I trusted them. So now I carry around the belief that an electron is a phenomenon, EM radiation is a phenomenon, and the phenomenon of EM radiation occurs, when the phenomenon of electron, is accelerated.
Understanding the nature of an object or object like area of stuff like stuff, I agreed with my self, nature, genius, intelligence, and obviousness, that the meaning of acceleration, and alteration of momentum, was the nature of the variance of relative movement, of this electron, object like object, thing like thing, area of stuff like area of stuff, that there must be a fundamental connection between the electron, and how it is undeniably associated with the production of EM radiation. I started questioning everyone on this board, their understanding of what an EM field is, asking every single possible question that can be asked about it. About this weird dual nature of Electro and magnetic, how a field can possibly exist, what the lines relate to in reality, how it moves, the weird electro and magnetic opposing oscillating features, how this can exist, how dense it is on average. And then through months of thought and musing, I finally realized, that the abstract assumption, that because the word particle is thrown around, and because its easy to just think of an area like area of stuff like stuff 'emitting' a omni directional bullet, that also is called a wave bullet, must have a reason for explanation, for explanation to be accurate. And so I ask, under what use of knowledge and experiment, would an intelligence come to the conclusion, that an electron, which is somehow surrounded by some type of material and/ or energetic medium, produce an omni directional bullet like wave of energy or matter, when the electron is accelerated? I am only speaking about things that can occur in real reality. When you abstract and abstract and generalize and revert and compress and abstract abstractions and abstraction generalities then you get further and further from reality.

I ask you to not so hastily drop this concept, of my concern, regarding the nature of EM propagation from a single electron.

Before you jump to the conclusions, you need to address the fundamental concept of a single electron being accelerated, and how a circle of EM radiation is not produced, why wouldnt that happen? If we have never done an experiment that measures one electron accelerated, with detecters all around it, you cannot say, 'it wouldnt happen because experiment disagrees'. I believe things can be deduced from theory. I believe even though I do not know for certain when you let go of an apple it will fall down to the ground, I can deduce from theory that it will. Like wise all our knowledge about electrons fundamentally and the EM field, can be deduced, to some decent degree, or even a helpful theoretical degree, as to what would occur when a single electron is accelerated. If you are thinking under the impression of the conclusion that electrons always produce omni directional bullet waves, then of course you will translate this assumption to my question of fundamentality, this is all sorts of kinds of thinking and operating and scientific fallacies, I dont want to say logical because then you use your knee jerk comment about how reality doesnt need to be logical, but yea it is a logical fallacy, in terms of your propositions and conclusions, intellectually and scientifically, intelligently, humanely irresponsible and dishonest.
I am proposing a fundamental concept and interpretation of reality,try to address this before you try to use later knowledge to deny it, u dont comprehend where I can go with it to solve probs.
edit on 21-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are completely ignoring what I am saying, and not offering any idea as to what I am saying is wrong.
I did explain what is wrong with what you're saying but you're the one who ignored my explanation.

Newton's classical mechanics is wrong and we know it, but it's right enough that we use it in many cases because the classical approximation is close enough. And we can say the same thing about classical electromagnetism which is what you are proposing as a model; we know it's wrong, but it's right enough that we use it in many cases because the classical approximation is close enough. It's only when you get into more involved experiments that you find out it's wrong, and I gave you an example which you ignored.

Those other questions you've just asked have already been answered many times. As I mentioned already some electromagnetic radiation has nothing to do with the electron. This EM radiation comes from protons:

Synchrotron radiation at the LHC

CERN is currently operating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with 3.5 TeV per beam. At this energy level, when the protons trajectory is bent, the protons emit synchrotron radiation (SR) with a critical energy of 5.5 eV. U
So it can't be coupled to the electron because it's coming from protons.

In a more clear example, consider light coming from a galaxy with a lookback time of 10 billion years. Chances are the brightest stars in that galaxy died over 9 billion years ago, so I don't see how you can be asking about the linkage between the 10 photons a minute we get from that object and some electron in some star that doesn't even exist any more, and I think we've already been over this. If those 10 photons were a giant circle as you suggest, they would have a diameter of maybe 80 billion light years, do you really think this makes sense? No it doesn't, and it's contradicted by experiments that show the photons don't expand.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


I did explain what is wrong with what you're saying but you're the one who ignored my explanation.

Newton's classical mechanics is wrong and we know it, but it's right enough that we use it in many cases because the classical approximation is close enough. And we can say the same thing about classical electromagnetism which is what you are proposing as a model; we know it's wrong, but it's right enough that we use it in many cases because the classical approximation is close enough. It's only when you get into more involved experiments that you find out it's wrong, and I gave you an example which you ignored.


Im not talking about newtons classical mechanics. You are ignoring what I am saying and not offering a legit example of what you think exists. You didnt answer the questions I proposed in my last post. When a single electron is accelerated, how does the EM radiation radiate away from it?



Those other questions you've just asked have already been answered many times. As I mentioned already some electromagnetic radiation has nothing to do with the electron. This EM radiation comes from protons:

Synchrotron radiation at the LHC

CERN is currently operating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with 3.5 TeV per beam. At this energy level, when the protons trajectory is bent, the protons emit synchrotron radiation (SR) with a critical energy of 5.5 eV. U
So it can't be coupled to the electron because it's coming from protons.

In a more clear example, consider light coming from a galaxy with a lookback time of 10 billion years. Chances are the brightest stars in that galaxy died over 9 billion years ago, so I don't see how you can be asking about the linkage between the 10 photons a minute we get from that object and some electron in some star that doesn't even exist any more, and I think we've already been over this. If those 10 photons were a giant circle as you suggest, they would have a diameter of maybe 80 billion light years, do you really think this makes sense? No it doesn't, and it's contradicted by experiments that show the photons don't expand.


You are a psychopath. EM radiation is caused by charged particles. Electron is a charged particle. I focus on Electron, because I am trying to dig deeply into the most fundamental comprehension of reality. Started as simple and fundamental as possible, instead of talking about all the charged particles, I use electron to represent a charged particle, to focus on how it is related to EM radiation. Wikipedia - "Electrons are responsible for emission of most EMR because they have low mass, and therefore are easily accelerated by a variety of mechanisms."

Please review the questions I have asked, and attempt to think about them, and attempt to answer them.
edit on 21-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


You have not provided me with one argument as to why and/or how when a single electron is accelerated, a ring of EM radiation does not propagate in an expanding manner away from it.
edit on 21-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


I am not saying what you think a photon is, a bullet that sometimes is a wave, expands. What you are calling a photon, I am calling 'the place on the circle, which increases in area, which is detected is what you call a photon'. And, the existence of 1 ring, which expands is a photon, as a photon in essence conceptually is '1 unit, or event of EM creation'. The ring is a wave, a unit, a moment, a singular, quantized event of EM creation, the ring expands indefinitely unless there is something that interacts with it, if there is a detector in the path of this ring, the detector will detect EM energy, if there is 1 ring created, the detector will detect 1 event of energy detection, which is called a photon.
edit on 21-9-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


I dont know what other way to show you em waves dont make a circle. em waves are directional we can broadcast them in random directions like an antenna. Or we ban make a beam like a laser. Both of these arent one Photon they are packets of photons. Im guessing your confusion is you dont realize there are two types of magnetic fields. One being near field this basically forms loops electric currents directly produce a magnetic field, but it is of a magnetic dipole type which dies out rapidly with distance. Than we have EM far-field which is composed of radiation and caused by fluctuations of the magnetic field near our electrons. So near looks much like the magnetic field of a magnet and far photons radiate outward in circles from the source. However 1 of them do not takes millions to form a circle expanding outwards. If this is not what your confused about than you arent making much sense and i guess you need to explain this circular photon thing.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
If you create 1 photon, it will travel in a straight path, the form of the photon isn't a outwardly expanding ring.

If what you say is correct, when a light source emits a single photon, we should be able to detect it anywhere on this ring that expands outwards at the speed of light (going on your description of what you think is happening).

This is NOT what we see. Simple lab experiments can be conducted to test this and it is simply not what is observed. Iv done single photon counting experiments and if what you said is true the alignment and positioning of sensors is irrelevant. I can tell you it is extremely relevant.

I think there is some confusion on small scale and large scale behaviour, and possibly misinterpretation of a diagram showing cerenkov radiation



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
If you create 1 photon, it will travel in a straight path, the form of the photon isn't a outwardly expanding ring.

If what you say is correct, when a light source emits a single photon, we should be able to detect it anywhere on this ring that expands outwards at the speed of light (going on your description of what you think is happening).

This is NOT what we see. Simple lab experiments can be conducted to test this and it is simply not what is observed. Iv done single photon counting experiments and if what you said is true the alignment and positioning of sensors is irrelevant. I can tell you it is extremely relevant.

I think there is some confusion on small scale and large scale behaviour, and possibly misinterpretation of a diagram showing cerenkov radiation


What are the means you used to produce a single photon?

When you say 'when the light source emits a single photon', what kind of light source is this? What is the shape of this light source?

How is it theoretically false, that (would you agree an electron is surrounded on all sides by EM field? I asked Arb a bunch of questions regarding this, like how is an electron attached/connected/coupled to the EM field which surrounds it) when a single electron, that exist in free space, that is surrounded by EM field, that is attached/connected/coupled to EM field, that when this single electron is accelerated, the result of this electron being attached/connected/coupled to the EM field which surrounds it, is the production of anything but the rippling of the EM field which surrounds the electron in the direction perpendicular to the direction of acceleration?

Why would only an infinitesimal point of the field connected to the electron send a line like ripple in only one direction surrounding the electron? How and why would that be able to occur? If that is true, and regardless, how is the EM field connected to the electron, so that when the electron moves, the EM field moves? And you say when the electron moves, the EM field surrounding it, only 1 infinitesimal line like direction moves.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok i think i see your confusion you do realize there is a difference between the magnetic field and the electric field?? Both are created from an electron when it moves to a lower orbit. Basically electrons dont like to remain in an excited state and release energy to return to its normal state,We call this its emission state. The electric component is 'omni-directional' in the sense that it radiates its force equally in all directions that reduces in strength according to the inverse square law.It is also whats called a non-variable force meaning it never changes its magnitude and remains constant. It only acts as a 'carrier' of the photon pulses.The magnetic component is 'directional' and varies from zero to maximum, relative to the observer and the velocities of the electrons. This gets back to experiments Eros was discussing where we can produce a photon and see where it goes. When the electrons make a transition back to their original energy level, these variations in velocity and curvature from a slower velocity to a higher one and from a larger orbit to a smaller one, creates the photon pulse. This type of transition creates a 'black body' type of pulse because of the variations in the electrons increasing velocity and reducing orbital curvature.

Now this energy has to go somewhere and it does we see it as a photon remember photons are nothing more than energy traveling from one point to another. Now this has an effect on the magnetic field i dont want to go into great detail here because i could take up 3 pages on the sight but it involves bosons. The magnetic field also radiates in "one direction only " to an observer because of the changing electrons movement and direction relative to the observer. The magnetic component is zero relative to the observer when the electron is approaching or receding in the opposite direction away from the observer. The radiation from the magnetic fields is at maximum to the observer when the electron is moving laterally to the observer.Sum this up think of it as 90 degrees from its current direction.

So, these changes in the magnetic fields affect the surrounding electric field particles known as "virtual charged particles". Although these particles are called"'virtual" we know they are real because these surrounding fields are "real". This is proven because of their "action at a distance". The magnetic fields are also real as everyone should know because of the magnets that are common to everyone’s knowledge. Now these The magnetic field causes these virtual particles to LUMP or condense together to form a mass of 'compressed virtual charged particles that transmit their momentum by pushing against the virtual particles in front of them. Sort of like compressing a spring but again analogy only i know how you get with analogies. They then transmit this condensed momentum through the electric field think of this as one pushing the next. You could say its a domino effect producing that pulse of energy. If you need a more detailed explanation at that point your going to need to learn physics. Im just trying to find a way to explain it to someone who doesnt understand photons. Realize this is a topic that students dont tackle until well into their education.

PS I think at this point your asking questions that is going to need you to study to understand even the basic components and truly understand Feynman diagrams because your starting to move beyond them remember they are cheat sheets to help us model the interactions but even they are simplified versions of the interactions.
edit on 9/21/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join