"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." ---Niels Bohr
technically its virtual photons that are the force carriers of the electromagnetic force, they are exchanged between the particles when there is an interaction, and while there are many similarities, virtual photons are not entirely the same as photons, for example, virtual photons are not necessarily massless, their energy E is not necessarily their momentum times the speed of light. (E=pc) If you think about the conservation laws of mass and energy, an electron simply emitting a regular photon would violate these, but due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, for very short time period, (~10-15s) these laws can be violated and virtual photon exchanges can occur, since they last for such a small amount of time. It is important to realise that virtual photons are not the same as photons that make up colour and other electromagnetic waves, and it is the virtual photons that carry the electromagnetic force, hence why we don't see light glowing around magnetic fieldswww.reddit.com...
Not only do we not know everything we would like to know about a particle, but we can't know everything we would like to know. This is what the uncertainty principle tells us.
What makes quantum physics truly special is this: Even if we know the theory of quantum physics inside out, and we perform thousands of experiments that verify its predictions, there are still questions that remain. These questions involve the meaning, the interpretation of quantum physics. For example, if we can't know the position or momentum of a particle, does the particle even have a specific value of position or momentum? Or does the particle only have these attributes when we measure them? The surprising answers provided by quantum physics seem to be: no and yes. To illustrate this, let's go back again to Young's two slit experiment.
The photon doesn't pass through just one slit at all. In other words, as the photon passes through the slits, not only don't we know it's location, it doesn't even have a location. It doesn't have a location until we observe it on the film. This paradox is the heart of what has come to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.
I'll summarize the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics this way: The wave function is a complete description of a wave-particle. That is, any information that can't be derived from the wave function doesn't exist. For example, if the wave is spread out over a broad region, then we can't determine where the particle is located. And since the wave function doesn't tell us the location, the particle doesn't have a location. Similarly, if a wave is made up of many different momenta, then the wave-particle doesn't have a value for the momentum. When a measurement of a wave-particle is made, its wave function collapses. So for example, if we precisely measure the momentum of a particle, its wave function suddenly changes from a wave made up of many momenta, to a wave with only one momentum. (This is termed a collapse, even though the wave doesn't actually get any smaller in this case. Remember, a wave with an exact momentum extends across the entire universe.) If two properties of a wave-particle are related by an uncertainty relation (such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), no measurement can simultaneously determine both properties to a precision greater than the uncertainty relation allows. In the case of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this means that if we measure the position of a particle, then there's a limit to the precision with which we can know the momentum. A consequence of this is that when we measure the position of a particle, we affect its momentum, and vice versa.
In the end, we are left with uncertainty.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by jiggerj
Oh, come on. By your avatar, I know you know it can look like anything
I know this? I honestly don't. Please show me a magnetic field that doesn't look like that.
Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by buddhasystem
yes, obviously, there is no marvel contained here.....i was entertained, and said so, mr. buddhasystem. She put up a good fight
Nonthermal Radiation Some of the more unusual objects in space such as supernovas, pulsars, radio galaxies, Seyfert galaxies, BL Lacertae objects, GRBs, and others, produce copious amounts of photons that can not be described as "blackbody radiation" or "thermal radiation." These photons almost certainly were not made by electrons changing their orbit. This process is not as well understood by scientists, and what is known may be incomplete. Scientists know of two techniques that can be used to create nonthermal radiation: the Synchrotron Process and the Inverse Compton Process. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model describes a new -- third -- process that can produce nonthermal radiation. This particle model describes "elementary" particles as: standing, spherical waves of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields -- in essence as balls of light. According to this particle model, when these "elementary" particles decay, they create nonthermal radiation. The Ball-of-Light Particle Model also predicts nonthermal radiation can be created by the electromagnetic fields on the surface of a ball-of-light. To summarize: thermal radiation comes just from electrons moving within atoms; nonthermal radiation comes from any surface or the decay of a ball-of-light.www.grandunification.com...
Figure 4a shows a scan taken during the alignment. There is almost a 4-fold symmetry, which shows that the crystal is aligned almost prefectly with the beam. This allowed the coherent peak to be positioned at any desired photon energy www2.cose.isu.edu...
Gintsburg [16] corrected the limit of Schrödinger and suggested that measurements of the magnetic ﬁeld of Jupiter could improve the limit to λ¯γ ∼ 10 6 km. He also was the ﬁrst to consider how the mass of the photon would inﬂuence the magnetohydrodynamic waves in plasma. www.itep.ru...
There exist about a dozen of papers [43–52] questioning the neutrality of photons and setting an upper limit on their charge. In all of them the upper limit follows from the non-observation of any action of external static electric or magnetic ﬁelds on photon’s charge, while the fact that these ﬁelds themselves are “built from photons” is ignored. As a result all those papers [43–52] lack a self-consistent phenomenological basis. But without such a basis any interpretation of experimental data is meaningless. In fact the authors [43–52] implicitly assumed that all photons are either neutral as in ordinary QED, or all are charged. It is obvious that the latter assumption is impossible to reconcile with the existence of classical static electric or magnetic ﬁelds. Hence the best upper limit on the value of photon charge presented by the Particle Data Group [45] seems to be meaningless. It is clear, that for a more consistent interpretation of searches [43–52] both types of photons are necessary: charged and neutral. In such a scheme classical electric and magnetic ﬁelds are built from the latter. Hence the scattering of all charged particles (including the charged photons) by these ﬁelds occurs due to absorption of virtual neutral photons. Charge is conserved in this processes. (The failure of theoretical attempts to violate the conservation of electric charge was analyzed in references [53, 54].)
Originally posted by MamaJ
Gintsburg [16] corrected the limit of Schrödinger and suggested that measurements of the magnetic ﬁeld of Jupiter could improve the limit to λ¯γ ∼ 10 6 km. He also was the ﬁrst to consider how the mass of the photon would inﬂuence the magnetohydrodynamic waves in plasma. www.itep.ru...
However, a scheme with both charged and neutral photons is also not
without serious problems. One of them is the catastrophic infrared emission
of neutral photons by massless charged ones. The other problems are
connected with the emission and absorption of charged photons by ordinary
charged particles, say, electrons.
Conservation of charge calls in this case for the existence of a twin electron
with charge e–e′, where e′ is the charge of the emitted charged photon,
which is assumed to be much smaller than e. The mass of the twin must
be much larger than the mass of the electron in order to avoid contradiction
with data on atomic, nuclear, and high energy physics.
One might consider the three photons with charges +e′, −e′, 0 as an
SU(2) Yang–Mills triplet, while the electron with charge e and its twin with
charge e–e′ as an SU(2) doublet. The SU(2) symmetry requires mass degeneracy
of particles belonging to the same multiplet. However, even in this
degenerate case it is impossible to accommodate the inequality e′/e ≪ 1.
The situation is further aggravated by the breaking of SU(2) gauge symmetry,
responsible for the difference of masses of particles and their twins.
Originally posted by tetra50
Not gonna enter the debate more than that. Rather enjoying the other ladies and their mastery.....
As for those "pure" physicists, out there, trying to bang their heads on the brick wall:
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well finally there is a real reference to real science, real paper and a real person, not some "balls of light". I've been to one of Okun's seminars then I worked at ITEP and his books were helpful in our classes.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well finally there is a real reference to real science, real paper and a real person, not some "balls of light". I've been to one of Okun's seminars then I worked at ITEP and his books were helpful in our classes.
So, John Nordberg is not a "real person."
To be a "real person" one must be sanctioned by the mainstream?
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Mary Rose
I wanted to make sure I was understanding the theory so far... I asked him a question to make sure I was getting it on FB and he replied with Bingo!