Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 07:02:08
-
Does Lenard's particle structure of light negate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's EM light wave, and, can an expanding em field represent Lenard's particle structure of light.
-
Why set the clock back 100 years and consider the raving of a dead Nazi to be of any importance in physics? Or did a man from Harvard introduce you to it?
-
Lenard made observations on the photoelectric effect in 1902.
Einstein explained it in 1905 - and got a Nobel prize for it.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Photoelectric_effect
Wikipedia tries to summarise this photoelectric duality like this:
Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.
-
Lenard made observations on the photoelectric effect in 1902.
Einstein explained it in 1905 - and got a Nobel prize for it.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Photoelectric_effect
Wikipedia tries to summarise this photoelectric duality like this:
Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously.
Is an electromagnetic field based on Faraday's induction effect expanding?
-
Does Lenard's particle structure of light negate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's EM light wave,
Any form of quantisation will mess up Maxwell's equations.
can an expanding em field represent Lenard's particle structure of light.
Who cares?
We have models for the propagation of EM radiation, and for the interaction with matter.
They work very well.
It's unrealistic to suppose that a long dead theory from a long dead theorist would do better.
-
Does Lenard's particle structure of light negate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that forms the coherency of Maxwell's EM light wave,
Any form of quantisation will mess up Maxwell's equations.
can an expanding em field represent Lenard's particle structure of light.
Who cares?
We have models for the propagation of EM radiation, and for the interaction with matter.
They work very well.
It's unrealistic to suppose that a long dead theory from a long dead theorist would do better.
I did not ask you if anyone cared. I asked you ---can an expanding em field represent Lenard's particle structure of light.
-
Yes.
But it may not represent it accurately.
So who cares?
-
Contradiction
-
Contradiction
Yes; you are good at that.
So what?
-
Can an expanding em field represent a particle structure? An expanding electromagnetic field in mutually exclusive to a particle structure which negative all of theoretical physics that is based on the gauge.
-
Can an expanding em field represent a particle structure?
Yes
Here is a bad representation of a hydrogen atom
O .
The "O" is the nucleus and the "." is the electron.
That representation is carried to your eyes from the screen by an expanding em field- specifically, light
Did you not realise what question you were asking?
-
an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain a particle structure of Einstein's electromagnetic photon since, as an electromagnetic field propagates, an electromagnetic field expands. The size of an electromagnetic photon would increase (expand), during propagation, which would eliminate the particle structure of Einstein's electromagnetic photon. A particle structure is incompatible with an expanding electromagnetic field yet Einstein is supporting Planck's quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that is the foundation of the wave-particle duality theory of light.
-
an expanding electromagnetic field cannot maintain a particle structure of Einstein's electromagnetic photon since, as an electromagnetic field propagates, an electromagnetic field expands. The size of an electromagnetic photon would increase (expand), during propagation, which would eliminate the particle structure of Einstein's electromagnetic photon. A particle structure is incompatible with an expanding electromagnetic field yet Einstein is supporting Planck's quantization of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that is the foundation of the wave-particle duality theory of light.
Just because a gas expands in a vacuum doesn't mean that the atoms which make up the gas expand as well. Same thing with photons and electromagnetic radiation.
-
Maxwell's electromagnetic field expands or radio waves would not dimension in intensity.
-
Maxwell's electromagnetic field expands or radio waves would not dimension in intensity.
What does "would not dimension in intensity" mean?
Nobody said that electromagnetic fields don't expand. But if you assume that photons must expand as well, then that is a non-sequitur. Gas atoms don't expand just because a gas expands. The distance between the atoms just increases. Same thing with photons being emitted from a light bulb or some similar emitter of EM radiation. The photons get further apart from each other, but that's all.
-
Maxwell's electromagnetic field expands or radio waves would not dimension in intensity.
What does "would not dimension in intensity" mean?
Nobody said that electromagnetic fields don't expand. But if you assume that photons must expand as well, then that is a non-sequitur. Gas atoms don't expand just because a gas expands. The distance between the atoms just increases. Same thing with photons being emitted from a light bulb or some similar emitter of EM radiation. The photons get further apart from each other, but that's all.
Well, if a photon is composed of an em field than it would have to expand to and if you say that a gas molecule is composed of an em field (gauge) then the gas molecule would also expand that would you are dealing with.
-
Well, if a photon is composed of an em field than it would have to expand
No it wouldn't. The expansion of the field is a bulk behavior of all of the photons collectively, not individual photons.
-
An electromagnetic photon depict a particle structure.
-
An electromagnetic photon depict a particle structure.
Sometimes. Sometimes they act as waves instead.
-
An electromagnetic photon depict a particle structure.
Sometimes. Sometimes they act as waves instead.
An electromagnetic photon can never depict a particle structure. NEVER.
-
An electromagnetic photon can never depict a particle structure. NEVER.
Argument from assertion again...
-
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.
-
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.
-
What part is incorrect I certainly would like to know and eagerly waiting to be informed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
To form wave coherency that is the foundation of the wave theory of light requires a continuous structure that Lenard negated.
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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.