[Kryptid]

An electromagnetic photon can never depict a particle structure. NEVER.

Argument from assertion again...

[alright1234 (OP)]

It is a fact not a assertion that the electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction effect and that the electromagnetic field expands during propagation; therefore, it is a fact that an electromagnetic photon can never form a particle structure NEVER which is a fact not an assertion or it is an assertion based on a fact.

[Kryptid]

It is a fact not a assertion that the electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction effect and that the electromagnetic field expands during propagation; therefore, it is a fact that an electromagnetic photon can never form a particle structure NEVER which is a fact not an assertion or it is an assertion based on a fact.

There you go with the composition fallacy again.

[alright1234 (OP)]

What part is incorrect I certainly would like to know and eagerly waiting to be informed.

[Kryptid]

What part is incorrect I certainly would like to know and eagerly waiting to be informed.

The composition fallacy is when you argue that something is true of a system's individual parts because it is true of the system as a whole. It's like arguing that a piece of plastic from a PC can connect to the Internet because the PC as a whole can do it.

[Colin2B]

Maxwell's electromagnetic field expands or radio waves would not dimension in intensity.

The em field only expands in certain circumstances eg point source spherical wave. Maxwell’s equations also describe a plane wave which does not expand and is used to model a photon.

[alright1234 (OP)]

What is wrong with this statement.

It is a fact not a assertion that the electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction effect and that the electromagnetic field expands during propagation; therefore, it is a fact that an electromagnetic photon can never form a particle structure NEVER which is a fact not an assertion or it is an assertion based on a fact.


Talk about the expansion of the electromagnetic field

[Bored chemist]

Talk about the expansion of the electromagnetic field

OK.
For a photon the expansion of the electromagnetic field is zero.
The formalisation of this in Maxwell's equations uses a plane wave.

That's enough talking about something that does not exist.

[alright1234 (OP)]

To form wave coherency that is the foundation of the wave theory of light requires a continuous structure that Lenard negated.

[chiralSPO]

If I may:

Light is light. And light is a complicated thing.

A particle is a very simple idea.

And in some contexts, it is possible to say that light behaves in the same way that a theoretical particle with very specific types of properties behaves. The theoretical predictions made by pretending that the light is actually a (simple) particle agree very well with actual experimental observations of (complex) light—but only in the right contexts.

A wave is a very simple idea.

And in some contexts, it is possible to say that light behaves in the same way that a theoretical wave with very specific types of properties behaves. The theoretical predictions made by pretending that the light is actually a (simple) wave agree very well with actual experimental observations of (complex) light—but only in the right contexts.

These models are useful because they allow us to ask and answer simple questions, whose answers are the same for very complex questions. But it is important not to confuse the model with reality. (see Plato's allegory of the caves).

Allow me to provide a more physically intuitive illustration:

An octopus is an octopus. And an octopus is a very complex thing.

A liquid a simple idea.

In the right context, an octopus can bee viewed as a simple liquid: it has a given mass and volume, but can adopt the shape of its container, and it flow from one container to another.

Modeling an octopus as a liquid is a good idea if you want to know if an octopus will fit in a box, or if you want to know whether it will float or sink in pure water (it would sink). However, trying to predict the behavior of two octopodes in the same jar will be next to impossible using only a simple liquid model. Worse yet, one could assume that the octopus actually is a liquid, and start asking questions like, "what is the boiling point of octopus?" This will surely get one into trouble (not to mention the octopus!)

It is important to remember that when the model's predicted behavior diverges from observations, this may well indicate misapplication of the model (wrong context) rather than poor quality of the model (as long as the predictions of the model hold up in other contexts, it is valid in those contexts.)

[alright1234 (OP)]

Talk about the expansion of the electromagnetic field

OK.
For a photon the expansion of the electromagnetic field is zero.
The formalisation of this in Maxwell's equations uses a plane wave.

That's enough talking about something that does not exist.

What kind of babbling is this?

[Bored chemist]

Talk about the expansion of the electromagnetic field

OK.
For a photon the expansion of the electromagnetic field is zero.
The formalisation of this in Maxwell's equations uses a plane wave.

That's enough talking about something that does not exist.

What kind of babbling is this?

None.
It isn't any kind of babbling.
It's just that you refuse to learn how things work.

If you want to learn, you can ask for an explanation of the science which you don't understand.
So, which bit of this is giving you difficulty?

For a photon the expansion of the electromagnetic field is zero.
The formalisation of this in Maxwell's equations uses a plane wave.

That's enough talking about something that does not exist.