0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I suspect that you can not get to the photon construct within Quantum theory. A photon has no apparent charge because the electric and magnetic charges that comprise it are equally balanced. Your description does not match the vision of a photon that I see. I'm not sure whether it is because I have not communicated the vision well, or you need to modify it to fit a view you can accept.The photon I describe is not my own invention. It is the way photons were depicted before Quantum theory came along and reduced the photon to a wave function. The photon I see is the same as is described by Maxwell's equations. It is comprised of electric and magnetic amplitude potential. It is charge neutral, but comprised entirely of charge. It has zero mass, but it is mass when it is confined in a local area.I suspect that you can not get the vision unless you can somehow avoid trying to mix Quantum theory with Reality theory. Hey; that's an idea!I think I'll start calling the photon-only universe scheme Reality Theory. []
We can build Reality Theory as we go. It should incorporate as much Quantum theory as possible, but still maintain strict adherence to cause and effect. That doesn't mean we must discover the cause for every effect, it just means that we know there is a cause, we may just not know exactly what it is.As in the original photon-only universe theory, we can base Reality Theory on just two postulates:(1)Space-time is flat and non varying in the classic sense.(2)The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.When I apply cause and effect while adhering to those postulates, I get Reality Theory []
Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:
To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 02:01:51To do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.Could we proceed with this without assuming the need for a Big Bang? It is possible that the so-called, "Big Bang", is only an invention that attempts to explain expansion when there are other explanations for the observed red shift.
Quote from: Mr. ScientistAre you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:Forces should balance resulting in the appearance of neutral charge in a photon. When the path of the photon is bent, the balance is interrupted, the field areas can not be symmetrical in the bend, charge is the result.QuoteTo do so, if i have understood you, the big bang would need to have been an event which was ruled by classical rules... but this is not the case on their scales.We have an easy out on this one. There could have been no big bang within Reality Theory. The natural rules of nature apply, we can not suspend them to allow for a creation event.
Verns answer, seems to apply directly to your question.
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
Quote from: Vern on 13/11/2009 02:45:34I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all. A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge. I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave. For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious. (1)How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave? (2)We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. (3)From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass. (4)How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?
But it's still a particle afterall
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 13/11/2009 04:22:22 But it's still a particle afterall Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state. In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.